Update OSPOlogyLive Framework Docs to align with 2026 resources and host opportunities

[anajsana]

This issue proposes creating a PR that refreshes the OSPOlogyLive framework documentation

Context

Over the past year, the way we organize OSPOlogyLive activities has evolved, and a few signals suggest the current framework documentation may no longer fully represent how the program operates today or the constraints and opportunities offered outside Europe in 2026

Here are some observed changes to consider:

• Noticed a reduction in organizing team member participation/time during sync preparation calls with hosts, and a shift in the kinds of tasks the core team can consistently take on
• We don’t currently have a print-ready (or shareable PDF) information pack, nor a clearly documented process/template for issuing sponsorship calls beyond the github repo documentation. In 2025, this limited our ability to scale events through funding/support
• LF staff capacity and support patterns have changed compared to previous cycles, which affects what can be reliably staffed and what needs to be community-led
• Community interest and opportunities now extend beyond Europe, with growing momentum across APAC, especially Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China
• Noticed confusion when multiple labels in TODO are used for similar formats (OSPO BoF, OSPO local meetings, OSPOlogy Live), which can make it harder for participants to understand what to expect and for organizers / ambassadors to reuse shared resources consistently

Based on these inputs, this issue proposes to update the documentation to better reflect:

• Current workflows and capacity constraints,
• The expanded regional footprint
• A consistent branding under OSPOlogy umbrella brand

[ryanHwH20]

Hi @anajsana ,

I’m interested in helping with this issue! I’ve read through the context, and would love to contribute to refreshing the documentation.

Please let me know if there are specific sections or tasks I can start with.

[anajsana]

Hi @anajsana ,

I’m interested in helping with this issue! I’ve read through the context, and would love to contribute to refreshing the documentation.

Please let me know if there are specific sections or tasks I can start with.

Thanks for digging into this and offering to help @ryanHwH20 ! Your input here would be super valuable

As a first step, my suggestion is that you coul add a new comment on this issue sharing rough bullet points on changes/updates you’d make, why those changes would help other regions adopt the OSPOlogy event format/brand (feel free to reference your case), and/or anything that felt unclear or missing in the current doc

Thus, we can make use of this issue as a starting point for discussion to get a few more eyes on the needs and align on a direction before opening a PR

[anajsana]

cc @tsteenbe @geekygirldawn who participated in the framework doc creation and review and @natalisucks @BrittanyIstenes @annania @gkunz @justaugustus @ashleywolf @fer-correa (SC members) for awareness

[ryanHwH20]

Based on my observations of regions where the OSPO ecosystem is still in its early stages, I’d like to propose the following updates to the framework to make it more "exportable" and scalable for 2026:

1. Flexible Event Duration (The "1-Day Quickstart" Option)

Proposed Change: Allow a modular 1-day agenda format alongside the traditional 2-day event.

Why it helps: For emerging regions(e.g. Taiwan), a 2-day commitment can be a high barrier for both hosts (logistics/cost) and participants (time away from work) when the OSPO value proposition is still being established locally. A 1-day "pioneer" event can act as a bridge to build the initial community momentum.

2. Maturity-Based Content Tiers (Discovery vs. Implementation)

Proposed Change: Introduce a "Discovery Track" template within the framework. While mature regions focus on "unconference" style peer-sharing, emerging regions may need a higher ratio of "Expert-led" sessions or "Intro to OSPO" workshops to level-set the audience.

Why it helps: It prevents "participation freeze" in new markets where attendees might feel they don't have enough experience yet to drive an unconference discussion.

3. "Business Case" Templates for Internal Buy-in

Proposed Change: As part of the print-ready info pack, include a "Why Host?" one-pager designed for internal stakeholders.

Why it helps: In many regions, the biggest hurdle isn't the community's interest, but the potential host's internal approval process. Providing a standard justification template reduces the burden on local organizers and helps them "sell" the event internally.

I hope these points provide a good starting point for the 2026 refresh.
Looking forward to any discussion!

[geekygirldawn]

Proposed Change: Allow a modular 1-day agenda format alongside the traditional 2-day event.

I really like this idea. A 2-day event isn't always practical, and people can learn a lot in one day!

2. Maturity-Based Content Tiers (Discovery vs. Implementation)

Proposed Change: Introduce a "Discovery Track" template within the framework. While mature regions focus on "unconference" style peer-sharing, emerging regions may need a higher ratio of "Expert-led" sessions or "Intro to OSPO" workshops to level-set the audience.

Why it helps: It prevents "participation freeze" in new markets where attendees might feel they don't have enough experience yet to drive an unconference discussion.

I definitely agree with the concern that for emerging regions without a lot of OSPO expertise, participants might struggle with the unconference sessions. However, I think the featured roundtables in the existing framework can be used to address this concern. In some of the early OSPOlogy sessions, we defined those in advance and had people pre-defined who were prepared to lead them. Maybe we can tweak the wording in that section to be more clear about how those featured roundtables can be run in areas with limited expertise. In particular, I'm thinking that the roundtables could be conducted more like workshops where the peer sharing would be done in a more structured way. @anajsana and I did this using the OSPO book as the framework for a workshop with an audience having very few OSPO experts, and it worked pretty well, so I think that could be easily adapted to the roundtable format.

3. "Business Case" Templates for Internal Buy-in

Proposed Change: As part of the print-ready info pack, include a "Why Host?" one-pager designed for internal stakeholders.

This is a great idea!

[anajsana]

Thank you all for the valuable input so far!

@ryanHwH20 , your proposals around the 1-day modular format, maturity-based content tiers, and Why Host? templates are really helpful, and @geekygirldawn, great point about adapting the featured roundtables to work more like structured workshops for emerging regions with less OSPO expertise

To make it easier for everyone to collaborate on these changes before we formalize them, I've created a working document where we can iterate together here. Please feel free to comment directly in the doc

Next Steps

1. Keep this document open for input and suggestions over the next 2-3 weeks.
2. Once we've aligned on the main updates, I'll consolidate everything into a Pull Request
3. Once PR is made, the Steering Committee will review and vote on
4. Once apporved, PR will get merged

cc @tsteenbe @natalisucks @BrittanyIstenes @annania @gkunz @justaugustus @ashleywolf @fer-correa

[ryanHwH20]

Hi @anajsana,

Thank you for setting up the working document!

Apologies for the delay.:( it’s been a very busy few months on my end, but I have finally finished updating the framework in the working doc.

I’ve incorporated the key points we discussed to make the OSPOlogyLive model more scalable for 2026, especially for emerging regions. Here are the main updates:

1. Modular 1-Day "Pioneer" Option: Introduced to lower the logistical and time barriers for new markets (like Taiwan) where the OSPO value proposition is still being established.

2. Maturity-Based Content Tiers: Created a parallel structure with the Discovery Track (focused on education/expert-led sessions) and the Implementation Track (focused on the core Unconference/Roundtable model).

3. Internal Buy-in & Advocacy KIT: Added a section for tools like the "Why Host?" One-Page. I’m also hoping the folks can share some past data or successful case insights to help populate these templates with real-world impact.

I’m looking forward to everyone's feedback in the doc so we can move on!