StateoftheMap Organizing Committee/Minutes/2015/2015-05-28 Meeting
SotM WG meeting
Previous minutes: StateoftheMap Organizing Committee/Minutes/2015/2015-05-21 Meeting
Time
May 28th 2015, 19:00 GMT
Present
- Rob N
- Gregory M
- Richard W
- Serge W
Absent Apologies
- Henk H
- Randy M
The meeting flowed without a formal agenda. Headings were added post-meeting for convenience.
Initial bid discussion
Recap on previous meeting.
More information come from bids, which has been worked into summary document.
Richard: Montreal quotes are outrageous, probably being increased with expectation/hope of no haggling.
Rob: Dilemma between low-cost or convenience.
Rob: We now have considerable amount of information, drawing in on making an option.
Richard: Behavioural question, how well have teams been responding?
Rob: All 3 bid teams have replied yesterday. All been good where they’ve been able to get the info.
Richard: All teams have met our minimum requirements, no reason to rule any out.
SotM Venue Vision
Greg: coming down to a vision thing. Montreal seems to be good for strong. Bucharest for Eastern Europe “go to new places”. Brussels any visionary-pull?
Serge: really good reasons to like Brussels. Brussels will attract French-speaking and German-speaking community, and British. Brussels/Montreal seem stronger than Bucharest.
Rob: Yep, agreed on strength and Brussels is not only one person. Would not be a problem getting people there. Bucharest opens up new regions, but we might struggle more to fill a venue if there is not a community there. Could still make something work. Only outstanding question with Montreal is the World Social Forum (WSF) and how that would link (registration fees per person, per session of talks, etc, unclear). Would reiterate not linking with WSF and avoiding that weekend, but would there still be local sponsorship left if needed.
Rob: leaves us with Montreal/Brussels as front runners, Bucharest needing more work.
Richard: are we ready to take a vote/decision in some way, or more info-collecting?
Serge: only info left is to confirm ability for Montreal to move date.
Richard: don’t think moving date would be an issue?
General consensus to rule out Bucharest.
Greg: what happens to non-winning bins? Encourage them to bid for 2017?
Rob: We could invite them to bid, and for 2017 we could decide to consider two venues if we open the call for venue with that potential remit.
Richard: must thank the bids and be ready to answer questions on how to improve their bids next time.
Montreal & OSM-US
Richard: I consider Montreal to be out of running, because US issue hasn’t been settled yet. Needs to be discussed and settled between OSMF board and OSM-US board.
Rob: What questions are there to discuss with OSM-US and what outcomes desired?
Richard: Agreement that if OSMF runs a conference on the same continent that the local community doesn’t run a competing event in the same year. (Happened with SotM Denver, Japan, SotM-EUs, etc). OSM-US is quite aggressive against OSMF.
Rob: OSM-US not necessarily aggressive but is strong and perhaps sees OSMF as a more back-sit org. They are doing well with their membership and conference attendance and sponsorship. Randy contacted us today to say sponsorship at record levels, so shouldn’t be a problem for us.
[discuss about where OSM-US funding goes, lack of knowledge limited discussion]
Rob: Second year Canada bidded strongly. Is it going to miff Canadian community and put-off future bids. Is this something said in Canada?
Richard: Very few local Canadian community go to SotM.
Richard: can’t resolve the issue in time for our discussion. Will choosing Montreal now give us first-advantage?
Rob: If we were to take 2 weeks to contact OSMF board and get this looked at? Would it be viable if OSM-US 2016 was at a different time of year and on the west coast?
Richard: get the OSMF to serve an injunction for the State of the Map trademark not to be used by SotM US.
Rob: OSMF board unlikely to respond in a week, and OSM-US could just use a new name.
Serge: Agreed this is an issue, but think about approach differently.
Richard: come to a decision?.
Rob: I want to discuss this with OSMF board and get them to minute a meeting with OSM-US or we be in the call with the sides.
Richard: Montreal won’t be asking “is it because of the US group”
Richard: Brussels is a great team and good track record with the community record.
Rob: happy to go with Brussels but don’t want to avoid this US subject and sweep it under. Ask for it to get involved and ask for it to be resolved in 2 weeks to allow
Greg: agreed with not wanting to sweep it under. Call for conference call or discuss on e-mail?
Rob: yep, conf-call means it’s less likely to be ignored.
Serge: if we call for conf-call and it doesn’t get organised then that gives us reason for avoiding it. Clarification, conf-call in 2 weeks between SotM-WG and OSMF board (not US) to discuss the issue and how to take it forward to SotM-US.
Venue discussion - Brussels - Université libre de Bruxelles
No catering quote yet.
Room 1(800) is in a different building to 2(288) & 3(206)
Greg: rooms in separate buildings has worked fine in the past.
Rob: works better perhaps in Europe, where as US there’s usually less link between buildings and more expense.
Rob: solutions for food could be found, working with what we’ve been told.
Previous minutes
No objections to previous minutes. Accepted.
Code of Conduct.
Everyone in call accepts our current version.
Serge: spoke to someone at Geek Feminism who will be feeding back the comments we made.
Richard is going to blog about CoC, any objections to linking to SotM Website [none, go ahead to blog/link given].
Actions
- Rob, contact the OSMF board to get a conference call with us before Wed.
- Rob, make CoC page discoverable.
Any other business
None.
Next meeting
Same time next Thursday, unless there’s a call (with OSMF board) scheduled beforehand.
Meeting ended at +55 minutes.