Difference between revisions of "Rfp-Possible-Improvements"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Improvements to the RFP process: * not mentioned that OSGeo expects a complimentary booth in the exhibition space (Nottingham) * not mentioned that the LOC needs to have an en...") |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Improvements to the RFP process: | + | Possible Improvements to the RFP ("request for proposals") process to host the next global FOSS4G: |
| − | + | * not mentioned that OSGeo expects a complimentary booth in the exhibition space ([[FOSS4G2013 Reflections by the LOC|Nottingham]]) | |
| − | + | * not mentioned that the LOC needs to have an entity (such as a professional conference organising company) in place for handling the bank part of the conference organising (Portland) | |
| + | * OSGeo should provide guidance on whether "key people" from projects should have free passes to the event, how many, and how they should be allocated | ||
| + | * OSGeo should be responsible for providing marketing materials and staff for their [[Operate OSGeo Booth|exhibition booth]] (this can be delegated to the LOC where possible but the prime responsibility should be OSGeo) [''<--My comment on this is that it can't be delegated to the LOC since they are busy with a conference. Perhaps it can be delegated to adjacent Local OSGeo Chapters?''] | ||
| + | * add question about laws, that threaten the diversity of our community (text proposal): 'FOSS4G attracts a global, diverse community. Are there any laws, or social norms, in your proposed location that would make members of our community feel unsafe or unwelcome? That could include, but is not limited to, anti-LGBTQ+ policies, policies that would prevent the free exercise of religion, restrictions on certain activities based on gender or other factor, etc?' | ||
| + | * replace timezone reference for deadlines to AoE (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/aoe) to avoid confusion | ||
| + | * add new OSGeo logo to the opening RFP page: https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/themes/roots/assets/img/logo-osgeo.svg | ||
| + | * possibly include mention of providing local child care options (in the document section "Conference Structure"). | ||
| + | * add mention of how the Travel Grant Programme will be a part of the event, but will be managed by the OSGeo Conference Committee (possibly include this in the document section "Conference Structure"). | ||
| + | * should the numbers in the requirement "Size of conference that could be hosted: 1000 or more" be raised, as the Boston event approached the 1200 number? | ||
| + | * should the RFP mention a $30000 grant from OSGeo to the chosen LOC to dedicate to providing & processing session videos (per the [https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-December/011075.html Boston LOC recommendations])? | ||
| + | * be more explicit about considering transport availability and costs: to get to the country; travel within it (eg rail, bus links from ports); and local transport (who wants to be stuck at an out-of-town conference centre on a Sunday?). | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category: FOSS4G]] | ||
| + | [[Category: FOSS4G2013]] | ||
| + | [[Category: FOSS4G2020]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Conference Committee]] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 13 June 2018
Possible Improvements to the RFP ("request for proposals") process to host the next global FOSS4G:
- not mentioned that OSGeo expects a complimentary booth in the exhibition space (Nottingham)
- not mentioned that the LOC needs to have an entity (such as a professional conference organising company) in place for handling the bank part of the conference organising (Portland)
- OSGeo should provide guidance on whether "key people" from projects should have free passes to the event, how many, and how they should be allocated
- OSGeo should be responsible for providing marketing materials and staff for their exhibition booth (this can be delegated to the LOC where possible but the prime responsibility should be OSGeo) [<--My comment on this is that it can't be delegated to the LOC since they are busy with a conference. Perhaps it can be delegated to adjacent Local OSGeo Chapters?]
- add question about laws, that threaten the diversity of our community (text proposal): 'FOSS4G attracts a global, diverse community. Are there any laws, or social norms, in your proposed location that would make members of our community feel unsafe or unwelcome? That could include, but is not limited to, anti-LGBTQ+ policies, policies that would prevent the free exercise of religion, restrictions on certain activities based on gender or other factor, etc?'
- replace timezone reference for deadlines to AoE (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/aoe) to avoid confusion
- add new OSGeo logo to the opening RFP page: https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/themes/roots/assets/img/logo-osgeo.svg
- possibly include mention of providing local child care options (in the document section "Conference Structure").
- add mention of how the Travel Grant Programme will be a part of the event, but will be managed by the OSGeo Conference Committee (possibly include this in the document section "Conference Structure").
- should the numbers in the requirement "Size of conference that could be hosted: 1000 or more" be raised, as the Boston event approached the 1200 number?
- should the RFP mention a $30000 grant from OSGeo to the chosen LOC to dedicate to providing & processing session videos (per the Boston LOC recommendations)?
- be more explicit about considering transport availability and costs: to get to the country; travel within it (eg rail, bus links from ports); and local transport (who wants to be stuck at an out-of-town conference centre on a Sunday?).
