One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI process. If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into policy/strategy
document.
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail into an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI process. If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into policy/strategy
document.
Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
taking the lead)
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail into an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should), then I also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public marketing email list.
Re question about breaking project up, I'd suggest we aim to minimise OSGeo volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good idea too.
On 18/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI process. If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into policy/strategy
document.
Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
taking the lead)
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail into an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
Marc, I'd prefer you send this to discuss as the chair of our committee.
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
+1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
through and respond cc'ng the original person but keeping the response
on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should), then I
also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public
marketing email list.
Re question about breaking project up, I'd suggest we aim to minimise OSGeo
volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one
prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good idea
too.
On 18/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI process.
If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into policy/strategy
document.
Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
taking the lead)
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail into
an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
Marc, I'd prefer you send this to discuss as the chair of our committee.
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
I was going to add Q&A/Clarifications to the website page. I think you already fielded some questions did you not Jeff?
···
On 18 January 2017 at 11:22, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
through and respond cc’ng the original person but keeping the response
on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should), then I
also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public
marketing email list.
Re question about breaking project up, I’d suggest we aim to minimise OSGeo
volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one
prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good idea
too.
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI process.
If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into policy/strategy
document.
Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
taking the lead)
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail into
an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
This one about breaking things up, but I asked them to ask to
secretary@. Ill ask them again to send to this list (someone can
moderate through I assume?)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com> wrote:
I was going to add Q&A/Clarifications to the website page. I think you
already fielded some questions did you not Jeff?
--
Jody Garnett
On 18 January 2017 at 11:22, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
through and respond cc'ng the original person but keeping the response
on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should),
> then I
> also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public
> marketing email list.
>
> Re question about breaking project up, I'd suggest we aim to minimise
> OSGeo
> volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one
> prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
>
> Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good
> idea
> too.
>
>
>
> On 18/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
>>>> questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
>>>> secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI
>>> process.
>>> If
>>> I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into
>>> policy/strategy
>>> document.
>>
>> Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
>> with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
>> ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
>> can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
>> taking the lead)
>>
>>>> The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
>>>> contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and
>>>> we
>>>> would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
>>>> could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
>>>> Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
>>>
>>>
>>> I see.
>>>
>>> The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail
>>> into
>>> an
>>> going editing role in 2018.
>>>
>>>> Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we send it, and answer questions as they come in. You can add Q&A
>>> to
>>> the
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/marketing/rebranding.html page.
>>
>> Marc, I'd prefer you send this to discuss as the chair of our
>> committee.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Marketing mailing list
>> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
I do not really mind how they ask; only that we post the questions and answers somewhere where all parties can see.
···
On 18 January 2017 at 11:39, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
This one about breaking things up, but I asked them to ask to
secretary@. Ill ask them again to send to this list (someone can
moderate through I assume?)
I was going to add Q&A/Clarifications to the website page. I think you
already fielded some questions did you not Jeff?
–
Jody Garnett
On 18 January 2017 at 11:22, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
through and respond cc’ng the original person but keeping the response
on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should),
then I
also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public
marketing email list.
Re question about breaking project up, I’d suggest we aim to minimise
OSGeo
volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one
prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good
idea
too.
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com>
wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI
process.
If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into
policy/strategy
document.
Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
taking the lead)
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and
we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail
into
an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
Did someone get my test mail from my other address? I just want to
make sure questions sent to this list are not gone into the ether.
Then its fine if they can just send questions to marketing@osgeo.org
and we can answer here and reply to them in cc and collect them all on
the wiki.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not really mind how they ask; only that we post the questions and
answers somewhere where all parties can see.
--
Jody Garnett
On 18 January 2017 at 11:39, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
This one about breaking things up, but I asked them to ask to
secretary@. Ill ask them again to send to this list (someone can
moderate through I assume?)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I was going to add Q&A/Clarifications to the website page. I think you
> already fielded some questions did you not Jeff?
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 18 January 2017 at 11:22, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
>> list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
>> through and respond cc'ng the original person but keeping the response
>> on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
>>
>> I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
>> not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should),
>> > then I
>> > also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this
>> > public
>> > marketing email list.
>> >
>> > Re question about breaking project up, I'd suggest we aim to minimise
>> > OSGeo
>> > volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under
>> > one
>> > prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
>> >
>> > Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a
>> > good
>> > idea
>> > too.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jody Garnett
>> >> <jody.garnett@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
>> >>>> questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
>> >>>> secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI
>> >>> process.
>> >>> If
>> >>> I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into
>> >>> policy/strategy
>> >>> document.
>> >>
>> >> Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me
>> >> directly
>> >> with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
>> >> ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and
>> >> we
>> >> can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I
>> >> am
>> >> taking the lead)
>> >>
>> >>>> The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
>> >>>> could be ok, but would require more project management on our
>> >>>> side.
>> >>>> Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I see.
>> >>>
>> >>> The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail
>> >>> into
>> >>> an
>> >>> going editing role in 2018.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Can we send it, and answer questions as they come in. You can add
>> >>> Q&A
>> >>> to
>> >>> the
>> >>> http://www.osgeo.org/marketing/rebranding.html page.
>> >>
>> >> Marc, I'd prefer you send this to discuss as the chair of our
>> >> committee.
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Marketing mailing list
>> >> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
>> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cameron Shorter
>> > M +61 419 142 254
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Marketing mailing list
>> > Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>> _______________________________________________
>> Marketing mailing list
>> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
Re sharing questions with the list, we don’t need to require people to subscribe to the list, we just need to be mindful that we don’t share private emails publicly. Probably the easiest way to achieve this is to ask a person’s permission before responding publicly.
···
On 19/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
I was going to add Q&A/Clarifications to the website page. I think you already fielded some questions did you not Jeff?
–
Jody Garnett
On 18 January 2017 at 11:22, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
through and respond cc’ng the original person but keeping the response
on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should), then I
also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public
marketing email list.
Re question about breaking project up, I’d suggest we aim to minimise OSGeo
volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one
prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good idea
too.
On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI process.
If
I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into policy/strategy
document.
Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
taking the lead)
The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and we
would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
I see.
The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail into
an
going editing role in 2018.
Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
Ok, Im fine to just let them come in to secretary then and just post
all questions and answers on the wiki and not show any personal info.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff,
Re sharing questions with the list, we don't need to require people to
subscribe to the list, we just need to be mindful that we don't share
private emails publicly. Probably the easiest way to achieve this is to ask
a person's permission before responding publicly.
On 19/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
I was going to add Q&A/Clarifications to the website page. I think you
already fielded some questions did you not Jeff?
--
Jody Garnett
On 18 January 2017 at 11:22, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on all these. It may be a bit much to ask folks to subscribe to our
list, does it allow through public posts, or could we moderate those
through and respond cc'ng the original person but keeping the response
on the list? Wiki is a great idea too.
I concur that the project management overhead on our side is probably
not worth it, lets see what kind of questions/responses we get.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we decide to answer questions publicly (which I think we should),
> then I
> also suggest that we encourage vendors to send questions to this public
> marketing email list.
>
> Re question about breaking project up, I'd suggest we aim to minimise
> OSGeo
> volunteer workload and risk by encouraging bidders to team up under one
> prime rather than put in multiple bids for multiple components.
>
> Adding a wiki with questions and official responses is probably a good
> idea
> too.
>
>
>
> On 18/01/2017 6:35 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 January 2017 at 11:14, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One question I have had already is how are we going to respond to
>>>> questions from potential vendors. Should they send them to
>>>> secretary@osgeo.org to be forwarded to us?
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume so; you may wish to volunteer act as point for the EOI
>>> process.
>>> If
>>> I remember our meeting notes Marc and I are digging into
>>> policy/strategy
>>> document.
>>
>> Im happy to be the POC, but I do NOT want people emailing me directly
>> with these questions and prefer to answer them formally. Perhaps we
>> ask the secretary to prepare any questions and send them to us and we
>> can respond as a group formally and with a public record (even if I am
>> taking the lead)
>>
>>>> The question at hand was whether we would consider splitting up the
>>>> contract so that a firm was only proposing for one or two parts and
>>>> we
>>>> would have another vendor for the other component(s). I think this
>>>> could be ok, but would require more project management on our side.
>>>> Should we put language to this effect in the letter to discuss?
>>>
>>>
>>> I see.
>>>
>>> The update to splitting out content migration is it could dovetail
>>> into
>>> an
>>> going editing role in 2018.
>>>
>>>> Really hoping we can get this out today, the clock is ticking
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we send it, and answer questions as they come in. You can add Q&A
>>> to
>>> the
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/marketing/rebranding.html page.
>>
>> Marc, I'd prefer you send this to discuss as the chair of our
>> committee.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Marketing mailing list
>> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
