Islandwood Code sprint (was Re: [Board] New MOUs proposed...)

[Howard Butler]

All,

This event (the annual winter North American code sprint) has

a) grassroots organized
b) self funded and backed for three years
c) been in the black every year
d) had its finances *in public view* every year
e) had increasing year-over-year attendance 

That the board is so uncomfortable with our financial situation that it can't immediately backstop this relatively small event says quite a bit. The sprinters are not looking for a handout, but simply insurance that they're covered in the event that it All Goes Wrong. With the positive history this even has, I would think an insurance underwriter would be confident to write a policy for it. Maybe that alternative should be sought out...

As far as cash flow, is the expected $40K+ profit from #foss4g2011 already allocated?  With so much (record?) attendance already registered, we're expected to be profitable here, right?  Again, the sprinters are only asking for a backstop, not a payment of sponsor's funding directly into supporting sprint attendance.

Otherwise, this is very disappointing. Unlike mythical outreach and marketing actives, these types of events provide immediately measurable benefits to the projects that participate by paying a significant part of their own way to attend. If OSGeo can't backstop these types of events, what does the organization exist to do? We always struggle with selling to potential member projects what benefits will be imbued by them by jump over, in, around, and through our incubation process. 

Howard

On Sep 2, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:

> Thanks Michael,
> 
> A few converging challenges for the board popped up during the discussion (all will be good topics for discussion at the next meeting), including:
> 
> * current financial status of OSGeo (lower than budget)
> * potential financial liability and timing of the request
> * budget plans for 2012
> * fundraising plans and ideas
> * mission of OSGeo - outreach/marketing vs. developer/project support
> * OSGeo role in developing projects and local chapters
> 
> There were differences in opinion on each of these, so it's easy to look at the logs and wonder "what the heck just happened?" .. when it looked like a pretty simple question.  Hope that's not discouraging!  It is good that these issues are exposed, since they really need to be addressed on an annual basis anyway.
> 
> Tyler
> 
> 
> On 2011-09-02, at 11:26 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> 
>> The timing at this point is open..  I can down the $12K deposit I have in
>> hand whenever I want to, the risk is just that the space may no longer be
>> available.
>> 
>> The balance ($12K) would be due at the time of the event (Feb 2012).
>> 
>> -mpg
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tyler Mitchell [mailto:tmitchell at osgeo.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:21 AM
>>> To: Frank Warmerdam
>>> Cc: mpg at flaxen.com; OSGeo-Board List
>>> Subject: Re: [Board] New MOUs proposed...
>>> 
>>> I was wondering about the cash flow timing - "when" as well as the "how
>>> much".  E.g. do we need to guarantee the deposit, plus the final bill and
>>> when would that be, etc.
>>> 
>>> Tyler
>>> 
>>> On 2011-09-02, at 11:16 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I see from the logs that the IslandWood sprint funding was voted
>>>>> down, but it looks like there were multiple possible reasons -- too
>>>>> hard on OSGeo budget, fear of setting precedent, ..?
>>>>> 
>>>>> These are reasonable concerns, certainly, but it's not clear to me if
>>>>> the board is looking for more input for me still for possible
>>>>> reconsideration at a future meeting, or if the issue is now completely
>>> closed and done with.
>>>>> I'm on a tight timeline here if this is to happen, so please let me
>>>>> know if any further action is needed on my part.
>>>> 
>>>> Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> From my perspective, I want to do a financial review of our current
>>>> position first.  If we have adequate reserves I have no problem
>>>> providing the guarantee.  One other thing is that we would need to
>>>> know an upper bound on the financial liability.  The motion that was
>>>> raised was to cover up to $12K but that struck me as inadequate as I
>>>> had the impression the potential liability was more like $20K (even
>>>> though that is very unlikely).
>>>> 
>>>> My "-1" does not mean that I am against supporting the code sprint,
>>>> only that I didn't feel the current motion was adequate and that I
>>>> wanted a better idea of our financial position before committing.
>>>> 
>>>> My hope is that we can settle this at the F2F in Denver in two weeks.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> --
>>>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------
>>>> ---------------------------------------+--------
>>>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
>>> warmerdam at pobox.com
>>>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>>>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board