<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think the distinction between a "regional" event and the international event is getting blurred<br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">______<br>Steven<br><br></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 6 Jul 2013, at 18:04, David Percy <<a href="mailto:percyd@pdx.edu">percyd@pdx.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I always thought that all profit went to OSGeo from the international event!<br>Did BC, South Africa, Australia, Barcelona, or Denver retain any<br>profit for the local organizers?<br><br>I thought there was talk of retaining profit from REGIONAL events, but<br>not the international one.<br>Interesting discussion!<br>Percy<br><br>On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">I think Andrews suggestion has a lot of merit. It could also be extended to<br>include the percentage retained by a local chapter where they are organising<br><br><br>Steven Feldman<br>KnowWhere Consulting<br><a href="http://www.knowwhereconsulting.co.uk">www.knowwhereconsulting.co.uk</a><br>http://twitter.com/stevenfeldman<br><br>+44 (0) 7958 924101<br>Sent from my iPhone<br><br>On 6 Jul 2013, at 14:15, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@eclipse.org> wrote:<br><br>Hi Jeroen, Cameron, All<br><br>I've always wondered how this worked for past events as it seemed quite<br>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<br>we could beforehand including talking with past chairs & Daniel as OSGeo's<br>treasurer. Thank you again for helping us! My personal opinion is that<br>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.<br>Jeroen, it sounds like you might feel a percentage might make more sense for<br>clarity. If so, what percentage do you feel is appropriate? Perhaps it is<br>appropriate to consider a percentage when the organizer covers any loss and<br>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><br>Hi all,<br>Good discussion! Signs are positive from the feedback to Cameron's question.<br>I agree with him that the proposal in not clear on this point while it is<br>very relevant for OSGeo. I suggest both proposals ensure the reviewed<br>versions are very explicit on what is done with profit. It should be clear<br>if percentages are used, fixed numbers etc. and where the remaining money<br>goes.<br>I indeed expect percentages of profit to go to others like the Eclipse<br>Foundation (and the largest percentage to osgeo) while any left over in the<br>accounts when closing them always goes to OSGeo.<br><br>Cheers, Jeroen<br><br>Op 6 jul. 2013 om 05:06 heeft Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@eclipse.org> het<br>volgende geschreven:<br><br>Hi Cameron,<br><br>A few comments in-line.<br><br>On 07/05/2013 08:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br><br>Thank you Eddie for the explanation.<br><br>I confess that my prior comments were based on email discussion before I'd<br>had a chance to read your proposal, and as such, my comments need not have<br>been worded as strongly as I phrased them.<br><br><br>Good stuff. We're really glad you had a chance to read it. Thanks.<br><br><br>So now that I have read the proposal, here are further financial<br>comments/questions:<br><br>* At the moment, the budget has a fixed amounts of money allocated to OSGeo<br>based upon attendance. I suggest that a fairer allocation of profit would be<br>to have OSGeo's earnings directly linked to total profit (probably as a<br>percentage). This reduces potential for future animosity which may arise if<br>the conference is especially successful (eg by attracting more sponsors),<br>where the Eclipse foundation receives a much greater share of profits than<br>OSGeo.<br><br><br>This is a simple misunderstanding. It is linked to profit. The number of<br>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<br>OSGeo as past events. Unfortunately there is precious little transparency as<br>to what this actually was. Perhaps this will be a very helpful discussion to<br>bring more clarity here?<br><br><br>* The offer of protecting OSGeo from financial risk is valuable to OSGeo,<br>though not essential.<br><br><br>OK, great. We didn't think it was essential, but hoped it would be viewed<br>positively and seen as a sign of considerable good faith.<br><br>* The budget only estimates up to 900 attendees. What happens if you attract<br>1000+ attendees (which I suggest is reasonably likely)<br><br>* In a likely scenario of 900+ delegates, there will be ~ $100,000 profit.<br>In previous years, OSGeo has been the recipient of such profit. As it<br>stands, the Eclipse foundation is "humbly requesting" that OSGeo donate ~<br>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<br>conversation be opened up to find an alternative where the OSGeo Foundation<br>is not stripped of income. (I note that the Eclipse foundation has budgeted<br>for staff time to act as a Professional Conference Organiser, so is not<br>dependant upon profit in order to recover staff costs).<br><br><br>I think this is likely a misunderstanding as well. To illustrate, what<br>happened to the profit in excess of what was paid to OSGeo by FOSS4G in<br>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.<br>So far as we can see, this is comparable to the best returns OSGeo has ever<br>received but without risk this time and doing our best to keep registration<br>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<br>location, and a detailed and credible plan... all the pieces for FOSS4G to<br>be a huge success in Washington D.C. in 2014. We hope the selection<br>committee agrees and we really appreciate the time taken to review our<br>proposal.<br><br>Kind regards,<br><br>Andrew<br><br><br>On 06/07/13 02:19, Eddie Pickle wrote:<br><br>Dear Cameron,<br><br>This may be a misunderstanding. What we are proposing for proceeds going to<br>OSGeo is, so far as we can determine, the same mechanism used for past<br>events including Denver. Our intent in our proposal is to offer OSGeo the<br>very highest proceeds possible, and to minimize any downside.<br><br>Our proposal holds registration, workshop, and sponsorship prices pretty<br>much the same as from Denver even though it will be 3 years previous by<br>2014. In our budget, we have included increasing contributions to OSGeo as<br>the conference is more successful. You’ll note at the 900 attendee mark, the<br>payment to OSGeo is $50K. For 1,000 attendees, we anticipate a payment of<br>approximately $75K.<br><br>We already have Platinum sponsorship commitments from two organizations<br>(OpenGeo and Radiant Blue) with a demonstrated track record of FOSS4G<br>sponsorship. Plus, we believe the accessibility of our Washington, DC<br>location for international, regional and local attendees will maximize<br>attendance and outreach opportunities.<br><br>Our proposal insulates OSGeo from financial risk from a loss. At the same<br>time it offers a return to OSGeo comparable to past events. This is no small<br>thing in today's economic uncertainty.<br><br>This proposal is backed by a professional team who organize events like<br>FOSS4G for a living. For an event as important as FOSS4G, we believe such a<br>team dramatically decreases risk.<br><br>As evident from our many letters of support, FOSS4G 2014 in Washington D.C.<br>will attract diverse participants, sponsors, and speakers. That should lead<br>to the kind of high quality program that will be, of course, the main<br>assurance of solid financial success.<br><br>Let me know if I can provide any further clarification.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Eddie<br><br>J. Edward Pickle<br>Chief Executive Officer<br>OpenGeo<br>http://opengeo.org<br>epickle@opengeo.org<br>703-608-0200 - Mobile<br><br><br><br>On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com><br>wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>On 3/07/2013 10:37 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br>- What happens with the net profit or loss beyond the OSGeo<br>contribution?<br></blockquote><br><br>The Eclipse Foundation is prepared to cover the loss. OSGeo would not be<br>expected to do so.<br><br>Should the event be more successful than the budget predicts, there will<br>be some balancing of re-investing to enhance priority areas as determined by<br>the committee.<br><br>Should there be modest profit beyond that, the Foundation humbly requests<br>it.<br><br>For what it's worth, I don't think they'll mind me sharing that we did<br>ask advice from Daniel Morissette & Peter Batty about the best way to<br>approach this. The advice was to keep it simple & clear which I hope we've<br>accomplished.<br></blockquote><br><br>Speaking as an OSGeo Board member, I'm seriously concerned that proposed<br>profit from our global FOSS4G is not being retained by OSGeo. OSGeo runs on<br>a shoestring budget, and the FOSS4G conference is OSGeo's primary income<br>source. Passing this income source across to the Eclipse foundation is<br>likely to have a substantial impact on OSGeo's viability (Eg: we would have<br>to reduce sponsoring code sprints and the like).<br><br>I request that sharing of the budget be re-considered. I consider it an<br>issue at show-stopper status.<br><br>More details about board priorities here:<br>http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Board_Priorities<br></blockquote><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Conference_dev mailing list<br>Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Conference_dev mailing list<br>Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br><br></blockquote><br><br><br>-- <br>David Percy ("Percy")<br>-Geospatial Data Manager<br>-Web Map Wrangler<br>-GIS Instructor<br>Portland State University<br>-<a href="http://gisgeek.pdx.edu">gisgeek.pdx.edu</a><br>-<a href="http://geology.pdx.edu">geology.pdx.edu</a><br>-<a href="http://portlandpulse.org">portlandpulse.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>