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...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Improvements to the RFP process: | 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 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) | ||
Revision as of 01:26, 1 October 2013
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 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)