process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

adam steer-2
Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

John Bryant
+1 from me, I'm against providing a pay-for-play platform, sponsors should go through the usual channels. I feel strongly that a big part of the value proposition for attendees is the promise of a community-driven event, and I'd see sponsored content as a strike against this ethos.

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Jonah Sullivan
In reply to this post by adam steer-2
I put this question to the promotions team at geoscience Australia. They said that conference sponsorship is much more attractive if there is a guarantee of direct promotion of the organisation.

The promotion opportunities include a booth and logos on swag.

The person I spoke to thought that sponsorship should buy a keynote speaker spot. I disagree, I prefer a keynote speaker chosen based on merit.

On Sun, 24 Mar. 2019, 13:37 adam steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Jonah Sullivan
In reply to this post by adam steer-2
+1

On Sun, 24 Mar. 2019, 13:37 adam steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Martin Tomko
In reply to this post by adam steer-2
+1, in the spirit of transparency,  and difference to other professional events. 

Martin

On 24 Mar. 2019 1:38 pm, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Greg Lauer
In reply to this post by adam steer-2
+1

On 24 Mar 2019, at 09:37, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by adam steer-2

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:
Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

adam steer-2
Hi Cameron

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

Regards,

Adam


On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:
Hi all

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

Thanks, and regards

Adam

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Martin Tomko

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--


_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Edoardo Neerhut
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Alex Leith
I mentioned this last year, but at our local SSSI conferences we’ve allowed the dinner or drinks sponsor to give an address at the dinner, or before the drinks. That could work with the $10,000 tier we have proposed here. It could even be at the icebreaker?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:28 pm, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

adam steer-2
Hi Alex, Ed

let’s start a new thread with ‘ideas for sponsors’. My vote on sponsor content at social events will be the same as last year ;)

Cheers

Adam

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:30, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I mentioned this last year, but at our local SSSI conferences we’ve allowed the dinner or drinks sponsor to give an address at the dinner, or before the drinks. That could work with the $10,000 tier we have proposed here. It could even be at the icebreaker?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:28 pm, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Edoardo Neerhut
Good idea, although probably best to have this in a doc.


On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:50, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alex, Ed

let’s start a new thread with ‘ideas for sponsors’. My vote on sponsor content at social events will be the same as last year ;)

Cheers

Adam

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:30, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I mentioned this last year, but at our local SSSI conferences we’ve allowed the dinner or drinks sponsor to give an address at the dinner, or before the drinks. That could work with the $10,000 tier we have proposed here. It could even be at the icebreaker?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:28 pm, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Trisha Moriarty
+1 for Adam's original motion.   I support the preference for community driven selection process for talks.

Trisha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good idea, although probably best to have this in a doc.


On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:50, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alex, Ed

let’s start a new thread with ‘ideas for sponsors’. My vote on sponsor content at social events will be the same as last year ;)

Cheers

Adam

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:30, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I mentioned this last year, but at our local SSSI conferences we’ve allowed the dinner or drinks sponsor to give an address at the dinner, or before the drinks. That could work with the $10,000 tier we have proposed here. It could even be at the icebreaker?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:28 pm, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

Kim Fitter
+1 for Adam's original motion too

On Monday, 25 March 2019, 15:31:56 GMT+13, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:


+1 for Adam's original motion.   I support the preference for community driven selection process for talks.

Trisha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good idea, although probably best to have this in a doc.


On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:50, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alex, Ed

let’s start a new thread with ‘ideas for sponsors’. My vote on sponsor content at social events will be the same as last year ;)

Cheers

Adam

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:30, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I mentioned this last year, but at our local SSSI conferences we’ve allowed the dinner or drinks sponsor to give an address at the dinner, or before the drinks. That could work with the $10,000 tier we have proposed here. It could even be at the icebreaker?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:28 pm, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

adam steer-2
Hi all

Apologies for not wrapping this up ahead of the conference committee meeting on 4 April. Over two weeks I count 8 +1s and no objections to the motion that sponsor talks should be subject to the normal review process; ie there is no guarantee that sponsor representatives will receive a talk slot.

I think that's enough to go ahead and call a decisiob, and all communications will start to focus that way. however, just in case you’ve been sitting on a draft/dissenting set of views, I’ll leave this issue open until Tuesday 9 April (morning giving you- effectively Friday and Monday to have a say) - after which we’ll set this in stone, prepare a prospectus and move on.

Regards

Adam





On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:21, Kim Fitter <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 for Adam's original motion too

On Monday, 25 March 2019, 15:31:56 GMT+13, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:


+1 for Adam's original motion.   I support the preference for community driven selection process for talks.

Trisha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good idea, although probably best to have this in a doc.


On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:50, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alex, Ed

let’s start a new thread with ‘ideas for sponsors’. My vote on sponsor content at social events will be the same as last year ;)

Cheers

Adam

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:30, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I mentioned this last year, but at our local SSSI conferences we’ve allowed the dinner or drinks sponsor to give an address at the dinner, or before the drinks. That could work with the $10,000 tier we have proposed here. It could even be at the icebreaker?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:28 pm, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to an unbiased and fair selection process on presentations.

I think we need to be creative and find other ways to add value to sponsors, particularly those who sign on in the higher tiers. Ideas are welcome on this front.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:30, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we also check what is the accepted practice in the general FOSS4G series ( NA, Europe, global, etc)? This may give us arguments for one arrangement against another.

 

My +1 for Adam’s solution still holds.

M.

 

From: FOSS4G-Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of adam steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2019 at 9:08 am
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: foss4g-oceania <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] process for sponsor-submitted talks at F4G SotM 2019

 

Hi Cameron

 

‘should we have a sponsor pitch session’ is another motion / discussion. I personally don’t like these - and feel that the plenary intro / sponsor thanks spiel will point people in the direction of where to find them for more information. In this case I feel tipping the balance consciously toward a ‘community feel’ as far as possible is the best approach.

 

Having said that, there’s a lot of conversation with the sponsorship team to have over how to operate this stuff for 2019. The programme is still very much vaporware.

 

I felt the balance people struck in talks (even from a few biggishcorporation folks) was about right in 2018; mostly aiming to educate with a bit of ‘heres the company I work for and what we do’.

 

It’s a good point to raise, and we can certainly include that intention in the CfP.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:20, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is a delicate balance question.

We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant programs, and cover the community day. We should say that ourselves. I think we should follow that with a  60 second pitch session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the start of the conference within a plenary).

We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at getting this balance right.)

+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit criteria (and not on how much you pay).

Cameron

On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:

Hi all

 

In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference wiki page at osgeo.org is just being started)

 

In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal process - that is, there is no guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted by sponsors need to go through the normal community review + committee filter.

 

On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would prefer ‘guaranteed content’.

 

Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:

 

Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model - meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk slots for sponsors?

 

+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as programme coordinator.

 

Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity, discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing ‘ready’ shortly after that.

 

Thanks, and regards

 

Adam



_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


 

--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania


--

_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania