Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

[Luca Delucchi via Discuss]

Hi all,

Thanks Michael, your set up a list of good points to keep in mind

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 at 20:12, michael terner  wrote:

>
>- *Financial Involvement by OSGeo *
>   - Sharing the risk beyond providing advances
>   - Active *work* to help insure the financial health of the
>   conference
>   - Human being from OSGeo paid to oversee the process and
>   help/mentor LOCs
>  - It is OSGeo's largest fundraiser, and as such OSGeo should
>  actively invest in success (and share more of the risk)
>
> I fully agree, I think OSGeo should be the entity signing directly the
contracts with all interested bodies in the conference

>
>- *Shared Systems*
>- Call for papers and program submittal review
>  - Community voting
>
> since this year we have it https://talks.osgeo.org/ (thanks to SAC)

>
>- Registration
>
> we could do the same af talks installing pretix on our infrastructure (we,
as Firenze LOC, didn't ask this because we need to use the PCO one)

>
>- Website platform/framework
>   - Conference Mobile App
>
> Using pretalx a good choice is to use
https://github.com/EventFahrplan/EventFahrplan

>
>- Partnering/technical approach for online video, and archiving when
>   it is needed/required
>  - This can be a very large cost
>
> Venueless is really chip and strong enough to support hybrid conference.
It is possible to send stream for most of the provider so venues can
provide their own stream

>
>- Etc.
>
>
>- *Sponsorship*
>   - Outreach to previous/recurring and global sponsors, including
>   maintaining "the list" of who to communicate with
>   - Coordination, and guidance to LOCs for recruiting new local
>   sponsors, and being introduced to global sponsors
>
> yes, this year we try to merge and clear few lists, we will provide a
final one at the end of the conference


> With these things covered, there is still *plenty *of work to be done and
> unique value to add:
>
>- *Setting the vision*
>- *Setting the program*
>- *Promoting the conference to ensure strong attendance*
>   - The hosting region generally supplies the large majority of
>   attendees
>- *Generating new in-region sponsors*
>- *Coordinating with the OSGeo team*
>- *Involvement with all the systems*
>   - The systems may be chosen, but it is the local team that develops
>   website content; identifies program tracks; *uses* the registration
>   system on a daily basis; etc. But, the team doesn't have to go through 
> the
>   effort and angst of selecting and, if necessary, paying for those 
> systems.
>- *Recruiting and activating local volunteers to help make the
>conference run and be successful*
>
> I suggest to add also Travel Grant too

I believe this discussion has been very productive and it will be
> interesting to see what the next steps are now that it appears that a
> strong quorum has chimed in.
>
> MT
>
>
-- 
ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

[Gavin Fleming via Discuss]

I support reassessing the FOSS4G modus operandi to ensure it stays fresh and 
relevant to the OSGeo communities and markets and keeps up to date with 
changing realities. Indeed it should be open to evolving from year to year. 

I think the essence of FOSS4G moving around the world and being a ‘local yet 
global’ event shouldn’t be lost.  

Perhaps more elements of conference organisation could be centralised to 
minimise the burden on the LOC and for continuity. I think Steven stepping up 
to assist with sponsorship support for a few years now is an example of that. I 
would say the web site / digital platform is another element that is a huge 
effort to re-imagine and reimplement each year, although when it was attempted 
before (for 2008) it was far from ideal, so it would have to be considered 
carefully. 

There will always be substantial effort involved at the local level, which for 
most LOC members is probably a once-off yet very gratifying labour of love. 

As far as the conference committee goes, I think it’s essential to retain as 
many past chairs / LOC members as are willing, but that membership should be 
supplemented by any wiling CM.

regards

Gavin 

> On 08 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Bruce Bannerman via Discuss 
> mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>> wrote:
> 
> Well said Sanghee.
> 
> As a former member of the LOC for FOSS4G-2009 I agree with the local 
> community development argument, though in our case it led to a lot of 
> burn-out.
> 
> There is also the practicality of finding a conference organiser that can 
> operate effectively anywhere in the world.
> 
> Should the alternate approach go through, significant thought also needs to 
> go into the procurement process to avoid the very real potential for 
> corruption.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Bruce
> 
>> On 9 Feb 2022, at 01:28, 신상희 via Discuss > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all, 
>> 
>> I prefer option 1. 
>> 
>> If this poll was asked just after FOSS4G Seoul 2015, I would have selected 
>> option 2 without any hesitations. 
>> 
>> However I now realize that I, LOC members, and local community had learned a 
>> lot by going through the difficulties of preparing the event altogether. 
>> That experience was very unique, invaluable and is now one of driving force 
>> of vibrant activity of OSGeo Korean chapter. Community driven FOSS4G with 
>> help from PCO is not so bad model, I think. 
>> 
>> Kind regards, 
>> 신상희
>> ---
>> Shin, Sanghee
>> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>> www.gaia3d.com 
>> 
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "michael terner" mailto:terner...@gmail.com>>
>> To: "Steven Feldman" mailto:shfeld...@gmail.com>>
>> Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" > >; "OSGeo Discussions" 
>> mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>>; "Massimiliano 
>> Cannata" > >; "Eli Adam" > >
>> Sent: 2022-02-06 오전 6:09:42
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some 
>> continuity of organization and management
>> 
>>> +2 for considering change
>>> 
>>> There's definitely room to consider continual improvements for the 
>>> conference process, as the world, and our community has evolved 
>>> considerably over the last few years. No easy solutions, but lots to think 
>>> about.
>>> 
>>> Eli starting this thread with an "informal poll" makes complete sense. The 
>>> Committee is simply doing it's job of helping the Board to manage and 
>>> promote the conference activity. We don't get to make decisions by 
>>> ourselves, but generating ideas is certainly part of the mandate. And, as 
>>> others have said, if the board disagrees with a proposal/idea, they do not 
>>> have to approve it.
>>> 
>>> MT
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 6:02 AM Steven Feldman >> > wrote:
>>> +2 from me
>>> 
>>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the conversation about changes to the 
>>> organisation of FOSS4G, then the Conference Ctee should vote and make a 
>>> recommendation (or recommendations) to the Board and the Board should 
>>> decide.
>>> 
>>> Our organisational model is that the charter members elect the board and 
>>> the board then makes decisions on their behalf, if CM’s don’t agree with 
>>> board decisions they have the option to vote in a new board, we do not have 
>>> a direct voting or referendum system where CM’s are consulted on individual 
>>> decisions.
>>> __
>>> Steven
>>> 
>>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org 
>>> 
>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild ” 
>>> newsletter
>>> 
 On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler >>> > wrote:
 
 Hi Maxi,
 Thanks! I completely agree with those type of changes indeed. It makes 
 sense we have a list of scenario’s forward and have a vote on that by the 
 community. 
 
 For what the membe