<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Jeroen, Cameron, All<br>
<br>
I've always wondered how this worked for past events as it seemed
quite secretive. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in the community in
this regard. <br>
<br>
For what it's worth, let the record show that we did due diligence
as best we could beforehand including talking with past chairs
& Daniel as OSGeo's treasurer. Thank you again for helping us!
My personal opinion is that clarity here will be a lasting benefit
to OSGeo & future organizers alike.<br>
<br>
We have proposed something we felt was workable within a credible
budget. Jeroen, it sounds like you might feel a percentage might
make more sense for clarity. If so, what percentage do you feel is
appropriate? Perhaps it is appropriate to consider a percentage
when the organizer covers any loss and one for when OSGeo covers
the loss.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 07/06/2013 02:41 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:822E5B95-69C8-4A47-BF84-5ABB801FC2DE@geocat.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Hi all,</div>
<div>Good discussion! Signs are positive from the feedback to
Cameron's question. I agree with him that the proposal in not
clear on this point while it is very relevant for OSGeo. I
suggest both proposals ensure the reviewed versions are very
explicit on what is done with profit. It should be clear if
percentages are used, fixed numbers etc. and where the remaining
money goes. </div>
<div>I indeed expect percentages of profit to go to others like
the Eclipse Foundation (and the largest percentage to osgeo)
while any left over in the accounts when closing them always
goes to OSGeo. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers, Jeroen<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Op 6 jul. 2013 om 05:06 heeft Andrew Ross <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:andrew.ross@eclipse.org">andrew.ross@eclipse.org</a>>
het volgende geschreven:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Cameron,<br>
<br>
A few comments in-line.<br>
<br>
On 07/05/2013 08:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D7676A.1070406@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thank you Eddie for the
explanation.<br>
<br>
I confess that my prior comments were based on email
discussion before I'd had a chance to read your proposal,
and as such, my comments need not have been worded as
strongly as I phrased them.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good stuff. We're really glad you had a chance to read it.
Thanks.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D7676A.1070406@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
So now that I have read the proposal, here are further
financial comments/questions:<br>
<br>
* At the moment, the budget has a fixed amounts of money
allocated to OSGeo based upon attendance. I suggest that a
fairer allocation of profit would be to have OSGeo's
earnings directly linked to total profit (probably as a
percentage). This reduces potential for future animosity
which may arise if the conference is especially successful
(eg by attracting more sponsors), where the Eclipse
foundation receives a much greater share of profits than
OSGeo.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a simple misunderstanding. It is linked to profit. The
number of attendees is a convenient handle for referring to a
given budget scenario.<br>
<br>
We strived to use the same or similar mechanism for
calculating payment to OSGeo as past events. Unfortunately
there is precious little transparency as to what this actually
was. Perhaps this will be a very helpful discussion to bring
more clarity here?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D7676A.1070406@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
* The offer of protecting OSGeo from financial risk is
valuable to OSGeo, though not essential.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
OK, great. We didn't think it was essential, but hoped it
would be viewed positively and seen as a sign of considerable
good faith.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D7676A.1070406@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> * The budget only estimates up
to 900 attendees. What happens if you attract 1000+
attendees (which I suggest is reasonably likely)<br>
<br>
* In a likely scenario of 900+ delegates, there will be ~
$100,000 profit. In previous years, OSGeo has been the
recipient of such profit. As it stands, the Eclipse
foundation is "humbly requesting" that OSGeo donate ~ half
OSGeo's projected annual income to the Eclipse foundation.<br>
<br>
I still find this of substantial concern to OSGeo, and
request that a conversation be opened up to find an
alternative where the OSGeo Foundation is not stripped of
income. (I note that the Eclipse foundation has budgeted
for staff time to act as a Professional Conference
Organiser, so is not dependant upon profit in order to
recover staff costs).<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think this is likely a misunderstanding as well. To
illustrate, what happened to the profit in excess of what was
paid to OSGeo by FOSS4G in Denver? This is what I meant by any
modest profit.<br>
<br>
Eddie outlined that at 1K attendees, we anticipate a payment
of around $75K. So far as we can see, this is comparable to
the best returns OSGeo has ever received but without risk this
time and doing our best to keep registration and other costs
as low as they possibly can be.<br>
<br>
We've got a very experienced team, strong and diverse support,
the ideal location, and a detailed and credible plan... all
the pieces for FOSS4G to be a huge success in Washington D.C.
in 2014. We hope the selection committee agrees and we really
appreciate the time taken to review our proposal.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D7676A.1070406@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
On 06/07/13 02:19, Eddie Pickle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADR4=YZqCRQwE4HpPYaGv+sq56gN8NYJYsX=PrUeArO8eDnL1A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Dear Cameron,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This may be a misunderstanding. What we are proposing
for proceeds going to OSGeo is, so far as we can
determine, the same mechanism used for past events
including Denver. Our intent in our proposal is to offer
OSGeo the very highest proceeds possible, and to
minimize any downside. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our proposal holds registration, workshop, and
sponsorship prices pretty much the same as from Denver
even though it will be 3 years previous by 2014. In our
budget, we have included increasing contributions to
OSGeo as the conference is more successful. You’ll note
at the 900 attendee mark, the payment to OSGeo is $50K.
For 1,000 attendees, we anticipate a payment of
approximately $75K.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We already have Platinum sponsorship commitments from
two organizations (OpenGeo and Radiant Blue) with a
demonstrated track record of FOSS4G sponsorship. Plus,
we believe the accessibility of our Washington, DC
location for international, regional and local attendees
will maximize attendance and outreach opportunities.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our proposal insulates OSGeo from financial risk from
a loss. At the same time it offers a return to OSGeo
comparable to past events. This is no small thing in
today's economic uncertainty. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>This proposal is backed by a professional team who
organize events like FOSS4G for a living. For an event
as important as FOSS4G, we believe such a team
dramatically decreases risk.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> As evident from our many letters of support, FOSS4G
2014 in Washington D.C. will attract diverse
participants, sponsors, and speakers. That should lead
to the kind of high quality program that will be, of
course, the main assurance of solid financial success.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me know if I can provide any further
clarification.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sincerely,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Eddie</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>J. Edward Pickle
<div>Chief Executive Officer</div>
<div> OpenGeo</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://opengeo.org"
target="_blank">http://opengeo.org</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:epickle@opengeo.org" target="_blank">epickle@opengeo.org</a></div>
<div>703-608-0200 - Mobile</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM,
Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"> On
3/07/2013 10:37 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- What happens with the net profit or loss beyond
the OSGeo contribution?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The Eclipse Foundation is prepared to cover the
loss. OSGeo would not be expected to do so.<br>
<br>
Should the event be more successful than the budget
predicts, there will be some balancing of
re-investing to enhance priority areas as determined
by the committee.<br>
<br>
Should there be modest profit beyond that, the
Foundation humbly requests it.<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, I don't think they'll mind me
sharing that we did ask advice from Daniel
Morissette & Peter Batty about the best way to
approach this. The advice was to keep it simple
& clear which I hope we've accomplished. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Speaking as an OSGeo Board member, I'm seriously
concerned that proposed profit from our global FOSS4G
is not being retained by OSGeo. OSGeo runs on a
shoestring budget, and the FOSS4G conference is
OSGeo's primary income source. Passing this income
source across to the Eclipse foundation is likely to
have a substantial impact on OSGeo's viability (Eg: we
would have to reduce sponsoring code sprints and the
like).<br>
<br>
I request that sharing of the budget be re-considered.
I consider it an issue at show-stopper status.<br>
<br>
More details about board priorities here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Board_Priorities"
target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Board_Priorities</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>