[FOSS4G-Oceania] Motion: Increased discount for workshop presenters
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 21:18:13 PDT 2018
John, Daniel, Your logic makes sense to me.
+1 from me to John's original motion of $150 tickets for workshop
presenters. Cameron
On 3/09/2018 12:20 PM, Daniel Silk wrote:
> I think offering the ticket for free further complicates things since
> we have an existing community contributor ticket at $150
>
> Like, does a workshop presenter spend significantly more time
> preparing a workshop than a committee member spends organising the
> conference? Or than someone who has contributed to FOSS4G software or
> OpenStreetMap data? I think if we were up front about it, it would be
> no problem, but if we're changing it this late in the piece then I
> think we should set it at $150.
>
> We're also changing the value proposition for sponsors which makes me
> a little uncomfortable, but given how supportive everyone has been, I
> don't think we'll have any trouble.
>
> +1 for $150 for workshop presenters and $300 for helpers.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:28 PM Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm in favour of supporting our workshop presenters, who will need
> to put in a significant amount of effort to put together their
> workshops - much greater than the value of a registration fee.
>
> If budget allows it, I'd be inclined to suggest workshop
> presenters be offered either:
>
> 1. To be able to sign up to the conference for free.
>
> 2. Decide to dedicate their fee toward the good mojo fund. (The
> slight rewording to potentially help presenters sell the concept
> to their employer, and also to have the presenter/employer
> recognised in conference credits).
>
> I'll leave it up to John to decide whether he wants to adjust the
> motion, or feels it should be left as is.
>
> Cheers, Cameron
>
>
> On 3/09/2018 9:39 AM, John Bryant wrote:
>> Thanks Trisha, I'm splitting this out into a separate thread as a
>> motion.
>>
>> Just having a look at the workshop presenters, I think there are
>> at most 6 people to whom this would apply - others have already
>> registered as sponsors, committee members, or already qualify for
>> the CC discount. So, in theory, the actual maximum impact on the
>> budget is quite small, probably on the order of $500-750.
>>
>> We should also consider offering the $300 presenter rate to some
>> workshop helpers, within limits (max one per workshop?). This
>> might incur a few hundred extra dollars in budget adjustment.
>>
>> Some of the presenters may have their registration paid for by
>> their employer, and may not care about the extra discount,
>> especially if it means redoing paperwork.
>>
>> I'm pretty comfortable projecting that we'll surpass our target
>> of 90 workshop registrations, so some of the projected budget
>> surplus is directly related to the success of the workshop
>> program. Re-investing some of this surplus back into the people
>> providing invaluable content seems positive to me.
>>
>> It would take extra effort to communicate this with the
>> presenters and make sure they're clear on what's on offer.
>> Trisha, sounds like you're willing to take this on?
>>
>> So, to be clear, I'll phrase this as a motion:
>>
>> *Motion: to offer workshop presenters the option of registering
>> for the conference at the Community Contributor rate ($150), and
>> to offer workshop helpers the option of registering at the
>> current Workshop Presenter rate ($300). The expected total cost
>> of this adjustment is estimated to be in the range of $1000.*
>>
>> I'm comfortable supporting this proposal. +1 from me.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: *Trisha Moriarty* <moriar1y at gmail.com
>> <mailto:moriar1y at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 at 17:30
>> Subject: Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] * Important - budget update *
>> To: foss4g-oceania <foss4g-oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> <mailto:foss4g-oceania at lists.osgeo.org>>
>>
>>
>> Its good to see the budget summary info, thanks John.
>>
>> I agree with Cameron principles and the seed fund is important,
>> but I would like to see this year's events benefit as much as
>> possible as well.
>>
>> So as an idea, in light of the surplus, could we increase the
>> discount on the conference ticket rate for presenters. Currently
>> the presenter ticket is $300. Could we lower it to the
>> community ticket rate $150.
>>
>> A number of the presenters already have access to sponsor or
>> community ticket rates, so the impact on budget would be for
>> approx. 10 tickets $1500
>>
>> Only 2 have actually purchased their presenter rate tickets, so
>> I was about to send out reminders to the others to register.
>>
>> I feel the presenters are making a very valuable contribution to
>> the conference, and this could be one way to demonstrate the
>> community's appreciation.
>>
>> But I realise this is going backwards on a decision and it will
>> be a bit messy offering refunds for the presenters who have
>> registered, but I thought it still worthwhile putting the
>> question out there.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 8:04 AM Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John for the summary. It will be helpful for making
>> decisions later.
>>
>> Talking to the principles of how we manage the surplus, I think:
>>
>> * Honour our agreement with SSSI, and ensure we continue to
>> make our maximum budgeted surplus and SSSI is paid the agreed
>> 50% of this for the risk they took in backing us.
>>
>> * The rest of the surplus should be put toward community
>> value, whatever we decide that to be.
>>
>> * We should invite SSSI to contribute to the discussion about
>> how the surplus is spent, which might include reserving some
>> of the surplus for next year.
>>
>>
>> On 1/09/2018 12:44 PM, John Bryant wrote:
>>> *TL;DR: based on conservative assumptions, in a 200 attendee
>>> projected budget, we are currently looking at a $30k+ surplus.*
>>>
>>> Hi team,
>>>
>>> As we push towards the event (80 days to go!), I want to
>>> provide an update on our financial position, as I think it
>>> will be important to have this in the front of our minds.
>>> There will be some financial decisions to make in the
>>> upcoming weeks, and we need to have this as context for this
>>> decision making.
>>>
>>> To date, we've operated with a fairly lean approach,
>>> budgeting conservatively, and making only modest adjustments
>>> to our budget. In our agreement with SSSI, we committed to
>>> aim for a surplus of $3k-$10k, and in fact have consistently
>>> guided our budget to a surplus more in the $15k-$20k range,
>>> to accommodate our uncertainty.
>>>
>>> Despite this constraint, we've done a great job of planning
>>> an exciting & interesting event, and our success on this
>>> front can be measured in part by our significant over
>>> achievement in the sponsorship area, and the high
>>> probability that we'll significantly exceed our target of
>>> 150 attendees. So, good job, us!
>>>
>>> But my point here, rather than to congratulate, is to raise
>>> awareness that *we are currently sitting on a much larger
>>> than expected surplus*. I wanted to understand this surplus
>>> better, so I set up a new 200 attendee scenario in our
>>> budget worksheet
>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14yHWdvEPxshBSBgxjc4vWgJlg0Svk8Qg0G-D3kF-siM/edit#gid=1274394515>.
>>> If there are any doubts whether we can reach 200, keep in
>>> mind we're already over 125 regos sold or committed, 11
>>> weeks out, without even announcing a program or going into a
>>> heavy promotion phase.
>>>
>>> This scenario is based on what I consider to be realistic &
>>> conservative assumptions (/listed in the worksheet, I'll
>>> repeat them here/). I don't want to prejudice our future
>>> discussions by including specifics like TGP & videorecording
>>> in these assumptions, we need to discuss these in a separate
>>> thread, but I include them as examples of significant
>>> expenditures we could add to our budget, and still have a
>>> large surplus.
>>>
>>> *Assumptions for 200 scenario:*
>>> 200 conf regos
>>> 150 half day workshop regos
>>> 120 dinner tickets
>>> CC tickets won't be taken up as much as expected
>>> increase student regos
>>> no additional sponsorship
>>> increase to TGP expense
>>> increase to keynote travel expense
>>> increase to paid staff expense
>>> include $5000 for swag
>>> include $4000 for video recording
>>>
>>> Even with all of these assumptions, which I consider to be
>>> generally erring on the side of caution, *we are looking at
>>> a $30k+ surplus*, which is large. See the budget worksheet
>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14yHWdvEPxshBSBgxjc4vWgJlg0Svk8Qg0G-D3kF-siM/edit#gid=1274394515>
>>> for the detailed scenario (/extra scrutiny would be very
>>> welcome/).
>>>
>>> Recall that part of our partnership agreement with SSSI is
>>> that we share 50% of the surplus with them, so at present we
>>> don't have the option of simply retaining the full surplus
>>> for future years. However, I hope we can open a discussion
>>> with SSSI and see if there is appetite for investing part of
>>> any unexpected windfall into future events. But clearly, we
>>> need to honour the agreement we have in place, and respect
>>> our partner's wishes on how they wish to proceed on this front.
>>>
>>> So, as we go forward over the next 11 weeks and careen to
>>> the finish line, I suggest we need to keep this budget
>>> surplus in mind. We've had many discussions where we've
>>> opted out of doing things because we haven't felt like we
>>> could justify the cost, but I argue at this point that we
>>> need to adjust our thinking a bit on this front. The money
>>> is coming from the community (sponsors and attendees), and I
>>> feel we owe it to the community to make wise decisions on
>>> how we spend this money, while ensuring the best event
>>> possible. This doesn't mean we start spending like sailors,
>>> of course (no offense to sailors!), but I suggest we have
>>> latitude to spend some money on things that will benefit the
>>> community and the event.
>>>
>>> I suggest we don't raise specific motions on expenditure in
>>> this thread, rather if there are specific motions arising,
>>> they should be raised in separate threads.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> jb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>>> <mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Technology Demystifier
>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>
>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> <mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> <mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> <mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>
--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/attachments/20180903/b04498c9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the FOSS4G-Oceania
mailing list