<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Just a FYI that in the latest board meeting, logs here: <a href="http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/#osgeo.2015-08-13.log" class="">http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2015-08-13.log</a> there was some more discussion about the liability.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards,</div><div class="">Bart</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 01 Jul 2015, at 04:54, Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" class="">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" class="">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Sorry to return to this again:<br class=""><br class="">"OSGeo will take on financial responsibility, including bridge funding and<br class="">absorbing shortfalls, should attendance fall short of conservative budgeted<br class="">estimates (to be agreed on early in the planning process)” or similar<br class="">statements sound fine but they have no precise meaning unless they are<br class="">underpinned by a contractual relationship between OSGeo and the LOC. In<br class="">some, if not most, cases the LOC itself has no legal status and so a<br class="">contract could require individuals to enter into that relationship. This<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Yes, there is a contract each year. My understanding is that the<br class="">contract leaves all or most of the risk on OSGeo. (Maybe we should<br class="">find the contract and read it? Or ask the Board to have a legal review<br class="">and advice.)<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">also implies that someone from OSGeo (either a board or a conference<br class="">committee member) will have some oversight of the conference planning and<br class="">finances. A professional conference organiser might solve these concerns.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Implying things in contracts isn't a sign of a good lawyer. If the<br class="">contract doesn't specify Board or other OSGeo representative oversight<br class="">over conference planning and finances than it isn't in the contract.<br class="">This might not be a good idea but to be otherwise, the contract would<br class="">need to specify. I prefer the LOCs to have wide latitude and think<br class="">that much more oversight than the existing loose oversight would be<br class="">detrimental.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">The RFP has some language about OSGeo Board oversight on finances:<br class=""><br class="">Establishing the Local Organizing Committee<br class="">Following the committee's decision, there is a process of establishing<br class="">a local organizing committee (LOC) which will include both local<br class="">organizers and representatives of OSGeo. The LOC will be expected to<br class="">operate within a budget framework to be approved by the OSGeo board.<br class=""><br class="">Eli<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">Yes, OSGeo employing a professional conference organizer might solve<br class="">these and other concerns. Looking back at 2007 is interesting,<br class=""><a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G2007_Governance" class="">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G2007_Governance</a>. Apparently,<br class="">previously there was more formal OSGeo oversight.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">So far it has all worked out fine, the LOCs have delivered and OSGeo has<br class="">benefited from all or part of the surpluses generated. My hunch, it will go<br class="">wrong sometime and then there could/will be recriminations.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">2012 didn't work out and it seemed things continued in the same<br class="">manner. Part of the pressure on you/Nottingham was to put a good (and<br class="">successful) face on FOSS4G. You did it very well too!<br class=""><br class="">I think that if we don't go with employing some PCO with continuity<br class="">from year to year, then we have to be comfortable taking this risk on<br class="">community members who we know. FOSS4G basically works on trust.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">I think we need to encourage the creativity of the LOCs without burdening<br class="">them with too much financial responsibility. If we are going to underwrite<br class="">FOSS4G events we need to have a closer relationship with the LOC and some<br class="">control over the purse strings. There is always risk around events (actually<br class="">on both sides) but we can manage it better if we have a clearer<br class="">understanding of risk and responsibility.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Agree. Or mostly agree (I think that purse string control would<br class="">hinder the LOC too much, imagine if it took you two weeks to have all<br class="">your decisions over 10k approved. How many big decisions did you have<br class="">to make on a very tight timeline?)<br class=""><br class="">Right now, I've copied the old text into the new 2017 RFP. Do you<br class="">have a proposal for different text? Should we ask the Board to take<br class="">some action before the 2018 RFP? If you have something that you think<br class="">would work I would probably be game for supporting that change.<br class=""><br class="">Eli<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""><br class="">______<br class="">Steven<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 24 Jun 2015, at 06:33, Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" class="">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Cameron Shorter<br class=""><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" class="">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">The OSGeo Board guaranteed most earlier global foss4g events (with the<br class="">exception of the failed Beijing event). Luckily all the sponsored events<br class="">have been profitable.<br class=""><br class="">The board addressed this topic or guarantees a few years back, and collated<br class="">into:<br class=""><br class=""><a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Conferences_and_related_events" class="">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Conferences_and_related_events</a><br class="">referenced from: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Guarantees<br class=""><br class="">Conferences are financially risky events. They need to be planned well in<br class="">advance, and you are never sure how many people will turn up, or whether<br class="">some global event will have a substantial impact on registrations.<br class="">Consequently, conferences such as FOSS4G require financial guarantees up<br class="">front in order to secure a venue. To support and enable these conferences,<br class="">OSGeo will endevour to retain sufficient capital to offer such guarantees<br class="">for any FOSS4G event requesting it. If OSGeo's support is requested, then<br class="">OSGeo would expect these events to budget for a modest profit under<br class="">conservative estimates, and for OSGeo to retain profits from such events. To<br class="">date, such profits, while relatively modest, have been OSGeo's primary<br class="">income source.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The 2015 RFP<br class="">(http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2015/osgeo-conference-2015-request-for-proposal.odt)<br class="">said,<br class=""><br class="">"Support by OSGeo<br class=""><br class="">Generally speaking it is anticipated that the conference effort will<br class="">be split into a local organizing committee responsible for all work on<br class="">venues, and the OSGeo Conference committee. Traditionally the local<br class="">conference committee did almost all the work, with the international<br class="">steering committee providing external advice, and some support.<br class="">Ultimately the success of the event depends on a strong local<br class="">conference committee that can pull everything together.<br class=""><br class="">OSGeo will take on financial responsibility, including bridge funding<br class="">and absorbing shortfalls, should attendance fall short of conservative<br class="">budgeted estimates (to be agreed on early in the planning process)."<br class=""><br class="">To me, the above is abundantly clear.<br class=""><br class="">As to Conference Committee Policy, it is not policy unless it is voted<br class="">on and passed by the committee, people voicing their opinions doesn't<br class="">make it the Conference Committee Policy.<br class=""><br class="">Conference Committee: should we pass a motion to the effect:<br class=""><br class="">--------------------<br class=""><br class="">"The OSGeo Conference Committee recommends that the OSGeo Board<br class="">affirms the RFP statement for 2015 and subsequent years:<br class=""><br class="">'Support by OSGeo<br class=""><br class="">Generally speaking it is anticipated that the conference effort will<br class="">be split into a local organizing committee responsible for all work on<br class="">venues, and the OSGeo Conference committee. Traditionally the local<br class="">conference committee did almost all the work, with the international<br class="">steering committee providing external advice, and some support.<br class="">Ultimately the success of the event depends on a strong local<br class="">conference committee that can pull everything together.<br class=""><br class="">OSGeo will take on financial responsibility, including bridge funding<br class="">and absorbing shortfalls, should attendance fall short of conservative<br class="">budgeted estimates (to be agreed on early in the planning process).'<br class=""><br class="">as well as the previously existing Board Policy,<br class="">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Conferences_and_related_events<br class=""><br class="">--------------------<br class=""><br class="">To me this is somewhat unnecessary and already the case and no one has<br class="">provided actual evidence that this is not already the case. However,<br class="">if there is confusion, we can pass a motion asking the Board to affirm<br class="">this as correct which should at least end the confusion.<br class=""><br class="">Best regards, Eli<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 19/06/2015 4:46 am, Eli Adam wrote:<br class=""><br class="">On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@garnix.org><br class="">wrote:<br class=""><br class="">If OSGeo is getting the benefits of any proceeds, they need to be assuming<br class="">the liability as well.<br class=""><br class="">I agree with this. I'd have to reread contracts (or get a lawyer's<br class="">opinion) but I think most of the liability is already largely on<br class="">OSGeo.<br class=""><br class="">This was the case for Portland, and was part of the contract signed with the<br class="">VTM Group (the POC) and OSGeo.<br class=""><br class="">Agree.<br class=""><br class="">The LoC *couldn’t* accept any liability, because the LoC was not a legal<br class="">entity, and to ask the LoC members to accept personal liability is obviously<br class="">ridiculous.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">So far OSGeo’s FOSS4G operating model is essentially this:<br class=""><br class="">1) "Anyone want to run a conference for us?"<br class="">2) Choose one of the people who offer to do it and delegate<br class="">3) Give them a pile of money<br class="">4) Hope for the best<br class="">5) Profit(?)<br class=""><br class="">If Darrell and I are in the bar, I'm prone to handing him my wallet,<br class="">saying "here's 40k, see you in a year with 100k", then I slap him on<br class="">the back and say "good luck!" His reactions range from a mild glare,<br class="">a gentle laugh, and occasionally a frothing at the mouth rant. This<br class="">model although very stressful for the LOC and chair, generally appears<br class="">to work.<br class=""><br class="">If (5) instead becomes “Lose money” that’s on OSGeo, and that’s as it should<br class="">be, because if (5) is “Profit” it gets all the rewards, too.<br class=""><br class="">But more seriously, yes (5) is/should not be "Profit(?)" but "Profit<br class="">or loss". As I said before, I'm not convinced that this is not<br class="">already the case. We can certainly clarify this in the RFP which will<br class="">go out soon for 2017. Feel free to join in on the RFP process<br class="">details,<br class="">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2015-May/003012.html<br class=""><br class="">Eli<br class=""><br class="">If Gaia3d (presumably) is accepting any direct financial or legal liability<br class="">for FOSS4G 2015 that is a *major* problem in my mind.<br class=""><br class="">d.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">--<br class="">Cameron Shorter,<br class="">Software and Data Solutions Manager<br class="">LISAsoft<br class="">Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,<br class="">26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009<br class=""><br class="">P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br class="">Conference_dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>