[OSGeo-Board] Budget. Eat this.

[Gary Lang]

I am in total agreement with this. I think it's critical to remain focused on the goals and to have all of these discussions framed around how they serve them. Discussion of operational principles outside of serving the members is an orthogonal discussion.

So for example if the goals are completely served by the stated budget, it's a good budget. If not, it is not. 

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Doyle [mailto:adoyle at eogeo.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:53 PM
To: Frank Warmerdam (External)
Cc: Arnulf Christl; board at board.osgeo.org; Tyler Mitchell (External)
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Board] Budget. Eat this.

Like Arnulf, I could work on this response for days and not feel I have it right. These are topics that need the nuance of personal interaction and the synergistic effects of group discussion. Of course, look at where the f2f got us. Smack in the middle of needing more f2f time.

I also feel slightly caught up in a discussion I'm not supposed to be in. I have Arnulf's looseness on the "cc:" trigger to thank for that.  
(Also note that the list server is likely to prevent my response from reaching the board list directly.)

So I'm going to break my response into parts. The rest may come later... here is part 1.

Once you start raising money to pay people for more than, say, 1/4 of their livelihood, you have to really pay attention to two things: 1.  
don't cause pain because you run out of money and 2. don't start behaving oddly because your motivation has turned from good works to self-preservation.

I have seen some big spending on things when times are good in non- profits. Hiring many people. Often square pegs for round holes. I've seen heartless, cruel layoffs in non-profits. Sometimes for being a square peg when the hole is round (duh!) and sometimes for other nonsensical reasons. I have seen odd behavior due to what I interpret as self-preservation.

Having said that, I think OSGeo is operating in a good way. I expect that the debate about budgets will be resolved well.

I'm on the side of small, incremental change that brings about a Zen- like amplification of the good and de-emphasis of the not-so-good.

Above all, be crystal clear about the goals, and then be more crystal clear about why money is needed to support the goals.

	Allan


On Jun 21, 2006, at 16:03, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Arnulf Christl wrote:
>> Another question altogether is whether this needs to change? Do we 
>> really need to set up a large budget? In the hope that especially 
>> Gary doesn't lose interest (we need you all the same or even more) I 
>> am still positive that we can do with very little planned for and 
>> fixed money involved. By setting up a half million budget for the 
>> first year we change the character of the Foundation a lot and go 
>> business right away. I don't think that I like that.
>
> Arnulf,
>
> I'll admit to my own qualms about setting up such a large budget.  I'm 
> worried that raising so much money will consume an aweful lot of 
> effort and goodwill and that we may need to make undesirable 
> compromises to accomplish it.
>
> Clearly, things could remain grassroots as they are, but I feel a 
> substantial part of why I am supporting OSGeo is so that it can 
> accelerate open source adoption in a substantial way, and as several 
> people have pointed applying money can make a big difference.
>
> I have a vague sense that we can achieve something like an order of 
> magnitude larger impact on the geospatial field over the next half a 
> decade by getting better organized and pushing in more professional 
> ways.  I don't know if that is true ... I must admit I am operating in 
> an area I'm not too well versed in.  But I'm willing to "stretch" 
> quite a bit to try and leap ahead in such a way.
>
>> And this is exactly what makes me stop short. Its not so much that 
>> there is money involved at all but what it does to our goals. And to 
>> our governance and to the faith of our contributors.
>
> I think we have already made some important steps in keeping our 
> governance true to our principles.  Mainly I mean establishing the 45 
> charter members who I feel have a strong sense of what open source is 
> all about.
>
>> * To provide resources for foundation projects - infrastructure, 
>> funding (Fundraising), legal, ... - $60,000 This does make sense as 
>> we will have to be able to technically provide for a container to 
>> manage and archive all legally relevant project information, data, 
>> code, etc. All the same we are about to prove
>> (hopefully) that a .org infrastructure like telascience can jump in 
>> perfectly well.
>
> While telascience is providing physical infrastructure, good system 
> administration costs money, and that is what the bulk of that 60K is 
> for.
>
>> * To operate an annual OSGeo Conference, possibly in cooperation with 
>> related efforts (e.g. EOGEO) - $100,000
> >
>> I believe that the annual conference should finance itself.  
>> Fullstop. If it does not, there is no need to continue it, then the 
>> conference is simply dead because no one wants it anymore. I am very 
>> sure that a commercial provider will be able to estimate the risk and 
>> finance a conference of this size just fine. If somebody from inside 
>> OSGeo wants to organize conferences professionally, so much the 
>> better - let them do it. If we do not find anybody with enough 
>> spatial balls - ask O'Reilly. We should just let somebody else take 
>> on the risk and the work and if they make some money out of it - 
>> fine. If they mess it up they did it for the last time and next year 
>> somebody else does it (messes it up again, obviously). This is just 
>> being highly pragmatic - not anti-commercial.
>
> First, the $100k is a working fund for the conference, and once raised 
> should be replentished from the conference once it is complete.  I'm 
> not keen on farming out the conference whole-sale to a commercial 
> conference organizer because I think this will boost costs 
> substantially making it less accessable to the community.
>
> While I enjoyed Where 2.0 quite a lot, it is definately *not* the sort 
> of conference I want to run for the OSGeo community.
>
> That said, I'm flexible on how we run the conference.  But I do think 
> it is an important part of building the community and fulfilling our 
> goals, so I want to ensure it is well supported and not operating at 
> random from year to year.
>
>> * To make foundation and related software more accessible to end 
>> users - binary "stack" builds, cross package documentation, etc. - 
>> $50,000 Yes, but what for? I am sure to be able to get together 
>> $50,000 for one year all by myself from clients that I am in contact 
>> with and who need a binary stack. It would be problem-driven and not 
>> product-planned.
>
> The goal of this money was to provide a seed for binary stack building 
> activity.
>
> Lots of folks are already doing problem driven binary stack builds.
> DM Solutions produces MS4W and FGS that provide the services they see 
> their customer base requiring.  I produce FWTools mostly so that I can 
> provide the latest and greatest features and bug fixes to my clients 
> and
> users.   Various others also exist.  But none of them are very
> comprehensive and none are fullfilling the broad needs of the 
> geospatial software user community.
>
> The "binary stack build" is an effort to make our toolset more 
> accessable and useful to end users.
>
> We could certainly argue (and no doubt will) about the best way to 
> provide the user with useful builds, but I personally feel we are 
> losing a lot of potential users who are turned off by the mismash of 
> builds available.
>
>> We would need a channel that we can stuff the money in - and that 
>> could well be OSGeo. But do we need to fix a budget that we have to 
>> reach until we really know that somebody is going to pay for it?
>
> I think it is clear that we the board need to see how successful 
> fundraising is before starting too many activities so as to not 
> outstrip our ability to raise money.  But that aside, it is hard to 
> try and raise money without some reasonable description of what we 
> want it for.  I see the budget as much as a "visioning exercise" as it 
> is about a concrete spending plan.
>
> > This is why I
>> do not want to accept why FunCom doesn't just start to collect money 
>> right away. Find out what we have to sell and sell it. That is 
>> probably too easy. (btw. I still have those €1000,- from FOSSGIS for 
>> the t-shirts because Adsk did it again! embtw (even more btw) Thanks 
>> Gary!((mine was scissors, yours was paper))).
>
> ADSK covered the shirts? Doh!  I'm eager to get to the point were we 
> aren't just doing everything on Autodesk's tab!
>
>> * Promote the use of open source software in the geospatial industry 
>> (not just foundation software)- $133,000
>
> I'm not exactly sure if this amount was the executive director amount 
> or the budget for VisCom promotion (boths, trade shows, travel, etc).
>
> A number of respectible people have made the point that an 
> organization is that all volunteer run (especially busy people like 
> us) will generally have substantially less impact than an organization 
> with some full time staff to "carry the ball".
>
> That said, I am a cheapskate, and would prefer to see us take a 
> relatively cheap approach to promotion with substantial amounts of 
> money spent only when we feel it is especially critical.  I'm pretty 
> keen on having an executive director (but not eager to grow "staff"
> beyond that); but even on that front I would prefer to see the salary 
> and benefits be enough for the person to be comfortable, but not so 
> high as to appear like a windfall to the community.  In essence I 
> would prefer to have an executive director working for a bit less than 
> they might be able to get in the private sector to demonstrate that 
> they are in it for the cause, not just the money.
>
>> Citing from the Wiki at:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Fundraising
>> In order to aggressively pursue promotion it is perceived that OSGeo 
>> would need one full time staff member (an executive director) and 
>> substantial resources for promotion, travel, infrastructure support. 
>> A value of $200000 USD per year in general foundation income (as 
>> opposed to conference, or project specific funding) has been 
>> suggested as a desirable goal.
>> I do not like the wording "aggressively pursue". I don't think that I 
>> am a wimp but who on earth should we pursue "aggressively"?
>> We explicitly state in our charter that we don't want to hurt 
>> anybody... This is not just funny words.
>
> To me "aggressively pursue" means actually making a substantial effort 
> to get out there and promote sponsorship.  Sort of the opposite of how 
> I get paid work (by only trying weakly to avoid it).
>
>> So what Executive Director would need to be is a mentor helping out 
>> when
> > there is trouble between the bros and sisters of the Foundation.
>
> This would be one role, but not a substantial part of the activity of 
> the ED in my mind.  I see them more often in an outwards facing role, 
> as the ambassador of OSGeo.  But also providing mundane support to the 
> various committees to ensure that things are getting done that need to 
> be.  Drafting policies, web materials, etc.
>
> > Dine with the rich uncle? Fine. But
>> do we need a paid for secretary and then a CTO and then a CKO (would 
>> I love that job...). And so on.
>
> Well, I have a "staff phobia" which is why I'm a one-man outfit.  I 
> don't mind OSGeo contracting for some administrative services or other 
> special activities (like binary stack, etc) but would prefer to keep 
> paid staff as small as is practical, like one person for the next 
> future.
>
>> Can we hammer down somewhere that the 'main decision body' of OSGeo 
>> must not (is not allowed to) ever spend more than 5% of their 
>> OSGeo-brainpower thinking about how to fund the next year? I will 
>> fight for this.
>
> Well, a quantitative value is impractical, but I think if we become 
> too focused on fund raising we should re-evaluate our priorities.
>
> In summary, I'm nervous about the big budget, but I think getting to 
> the "next level of credibility, and impact" which is my goal, will 
> require money and I'm prepared to go against my conservative instincts 
> if needed.
> Clearly the rest of the board needs to consider how they feel about 
> this too.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> +--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,  
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http:// 
> osgeo.org
>

--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org For additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org