Difference between revisions of "Conference Committee 2016 Priorities"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 | ||
| + | # Formalize how the committee operates. Perhaps [[Committee_Guidelines]] modified by our RFP secret vote and tie breaker method so we don't have to keep rehashing these. | ||
# 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 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 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 | # 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. | # 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 |
| + | # 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. | ||
Revision as of 12:03, 14 March 2016
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
- Formalize how the committee operates. Perhaps Committee_Guidelines modified by our RFP secret vote and tie breaker method so we don't have to keep rehashing these.
- 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 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
- 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.