Conference Committee 2016 Priorities - Revision history

Jmckenna: add category so page can be found in future

2018-06-12T18:06:16Z

add category so page can be found in future

Elil at 20:03, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T20:03:38Z

Stevenfeldman at 18:59, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T18:59:16Z

Stevenfeldman: Initial list of Conference Committee priorities for 2016

2016-03-14T18:57:03Z

Initial list of Conference Committee priorities for 2016

New page

This page sets out the topics which the Conference committee will seek to address during 2016. It is an evolving list of topics which should be updated by all members of the conference committee. As decisions or policy discussions evolve a summary should be included in each topic.

The initial list is copied from mails (Steven and Cameron) on the Conference mailing list

# We may want to consider whether we need separate criteria for committee membership and eligibility for voting for the selection of global FOSS4Gs
# We may want to consider whether there should be a formal policy or process to manage potential competing events under the FOSS4G or OSGeo banners
# We will start the RfP process for FOSS4G 2018 immediately after 2016 closes, it will probably be a good idea to review the RfP documentation and requirements before issuing again as there have been several suggestions for improvements.
# Fleshing out our [[FOSS4G_Handbook|handbook]] and aligning with FOSS4G bid documentation
#Addressing our loss of collective knowledge between FOSS4G events, with each new event starting with a new team. Ideas have floated in the past about having a single person dedicated to FOSS4G events. This might be a paid position
# Resolving our current issue of having more detailed review of conference proposals than we have volunteer time
# Considering our relationship between OSGeo and LocationTech, both of which host Open Source Geospatial events, both of which bring unique but slightly different value propositions. 3 cities bid for FOSS4G from North America for 2017, two teamed with LocationTech. Debate about which city to select was dominated by whether OSGeo should work with LocationTech, which resulted in these cities potentially being disadvantaged. This is something the board and/or conference committee should resolve before calling for bids.
#Understanding and formalising our position related to FOSS4G regional and local events and working out how we can support and help them better

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 12 June 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:
	# Understanding and formalising our position related to FOSS4G regional and local events and working out how we can support and help them better		# Understanding and formalising our position related to FOSS4G regional and local events and working out how we can support and help them better
	# Housekeeping. I'd like a real motion for Sanghee to join the committee. I don't consider the non-motion to add him valid. Also formalize any other items like this.		# Housekeeping. I'd like a real motion for Sanghee to join the committee. I don't consider the non-motion to add him valid. Also formalize any other items like this.
		+
		+	[[Category:Conference Committee]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 14 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This page sets out the topics which the Conference ~~committee~~ will seek to address during 2016. It is an evolving list of topics which should be updated by all members of the conference committee. As decisions or policy discussions evolve a summary should be included in each topic.	+	This page sets out the topics which the [[Conference Committee]] will seek to address during 2016. It is an evolving list of topics which should be updated by all members of the conference committee. As decisions or policy discussions evolve a summary should be included in each topic.

	The initial list is copied from mails (Steven and Cameron) on the Conference mailing list		The initial list is copied from mails (Steven and Cameron) on the Conference mailing list

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 The initial list is copied from mails (Steven and Cameron) on the Conference mailing list
 # We may want to consider whether we need separate criteria for committee membership and eligibility for voting for the selection of global FOSS4Gs
 # We may want to consider whether there should be a formal policy or process to manage potential competing events under the FOSS4G or OSGeo banners
@@ Line 10: / Line 11: @@
 # Resolving our current issue of having more detailed review of conference proposals than we have volunteer time
 # Considering our relationship between OSGeo and LocationTech, both of which host Open Source Geospatial events, both of which bring unique but slightly different value propositions. 3 cities bid for FOSS4G from North America for 2017, two teamed with LocationTech. Debate about which city to select was dominated by whether OSGeo should work with LocationTech, which resulted in these cities potentially being disadvantaged. This is something the board and/or conference committee should resolve before calling for bids.
-#Understanding and formalising our position related to FOSS4G regional and local events and working out how we can support and help them better
+# Understanding and formalising our position related to FOSS4G regional and local events and working out how we can support and help them better