Cameron --<div><br></div><div>I really don't see how this is any different from what the Board already does for Project Sponsorships (<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Sponsorship">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Sponsorship</a>). Rather than the 25% that sponsors pay into the OSGeo general fund, we are offering 50%. What is your picture of what happens with GDAL earmarked funds if OSGeo has financial hardship?</div>
<div><br></div><div>To be clear, I don't see this 50% as being part of what we are asking for to secure the conference. This 50% is to act as an initial pot of money that the conference organizers can do to pay for things like venue deposits or designer fees or professional conference management fees to get things off the ground that are often needed before a conference organizing committee can even get any sponsors. Please note these are all costs that we are not asking for upfront from OSGeo exactly because we have received the profits from the previous event. </div>
<div><br></div><div>It is the 50% that goes to the OSGeo general fund that should be used by OSGeo to fulfill its <a href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html">mission</a>. It is my belief that supporting conferences like this has been and should continue to be an important part of that mission.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm not really sure I've helped or hurt my case with you with this.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 21/08/2012 10:08 PM, David William
Bitner wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<div>3. Earmark a minimum of 50% of net
conference profits for future FOSS4G<br>
North America events (excluding the main FOSS4G
international event).<br>
</div>
* I think this is a valid request, but there are many grey
areas associated with the wide comment and I believe it
requires more discussion (at least weeks). FOSS4G-NA, in the
interests of getting this motion approved, can we please
remove this point from the motion.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No. We are willing to refine this statement, but as we
received 100% of net conference profits from our preceding
event, we feel it is only fair if we pass a significant amount
forward to make sure this event continues. Would limiting it to
an earmark of 50% to a 2015 NA Event (2014 if the 2014
International event is not in NA) with that amount rolling back
to OSGeo general funds were it not to happen limit this better
for you?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm breaking discussion out as a separate thread.<br>
My concerns with this statement is that while OSGeo may wish to
provide this support, there are a number of valid scenarios where it
will be difficult to deliver, and how OSGeo delivers is open to
mis-interpretation.<br>
As we are seeing right now, Conferences need funds to secure a
conference. Assuming everything goes to plan, these funds will never
be used, they just sit in the bank acting as a guarantee. Is this
what the 50% funds are to be used for? (I think this is a valid
request).<br>
Can FOSS4G-NA spend all of the 50% funds on extra activities (such
as sponsoring a code sprint), at the expense of retaining security
funds for next year? I think that security funds need to be kept in
the bank, and if there is some money left over, then there could be
extra funds spend on extra activities.<br>
If these funds are sitting in the bank, then can OSGeo use these 50%
funds to secure another conference in an off year? I think OSGeo
should be able to.<br>
If the other conference fails, and OSGeo looses much of its capital,
does OSGeo need to honour its commitment to FOSS4G-NA at the expense
of OSGeo's core business? I don't think so.<br>
And if FOSS4G-NA put such clauses into agreements with OSGeo, then
expect them from the rest of the world as well. Who do you propose
will manage, monitor and arbitrate on all these agreements? Note
that OSGeo doesn't have any paid staff.<br>
<br>
As you can see from above, there are lots of questions, which I
think will take weeks and probably longer to consider.<br>
<br>
As such I would like to move forward without this statement included
in the agreement, but with an understanding that FOSS4G-NA wish to
have "a minimum of 50% of net conference profits for future FOSS4G
North America events (excluding the main FOSS4G international
event)", and the OSGeo Board acknowledging that this is a reasonable
request which the board would like to honour in principle, but which
the board is not ready to commit to until the details have been
considered.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050" value="+61285705050" target="_blank">+61 (0)2 8570 5050</a>
Mob: <a href="tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 (0)419 142 254</a>
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
<a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>************************************<br>David William Bitner<br>
</div>