[Board] Re: [Fwd: [Foss4g2010-private] Budget FOSS4G 2010, review 12-2009]

[Jeff McKenna]

Thanks for your excellent summary Paul.  Seeing the 20,000USD written 
into the budget as an expense and still show a profit (good catch by the 
way), and another 5% miscellaneous, really makes me wonder about OSGeo's 
requirements for the 2011 RFP (but that's for a different thread I 
suppose).

That said, what is relevant is possibly a discussion, dare i say it, of 
what an LOC is supposed to do in the case of this profit - 2007's 
numbers were very good (+120,000CAD?), and I believe the 2007 LOC gave a 
good chunk back to OSGeo.  What, in the opinion of the Board, should an 
LOC be doing with this $?  Should a statement be added into the 2011 RFP 
to handle this possible scenario?  Do we dare try to make this formal?

Back to the 2010 budget: I also think the early/late registration fees 
are not priced different enough - I think in 2007 the difference was 
200CAD and for 2010 it would be only 100CAD.

I think this is a good budget at such an early stage in the game (have 
we ever had such a detailed budget to approve for FOSS4G in the past?).

Grupo Pacifico seems to be on the ball.

-jeff



Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Bearing in mind that PDF budgets are very difficult to work with
> compared to a spreadsheet *cough* *cough*, here's some thoughts.
> 
> - The budget is very comprehensive and has many fiddly bits that are
> commonly discovered later in the planning process ("hey, we need
> poster panels!").
> - There is a contingency expense category "Miscellaneous" which
> actually already *includes* the budgeted OSGeo profit, and an
> additional 5% gross contingency, which makes the category run from
> EUR30K on the low and at EUR40K on the high end. This is in *addition*
> to the headline profit of EUR25K at the low end to EUR30K on the high
> end.
> - So, even ignoring the contingency, the profit-to-OSGeo of the event
> is about 50% higher than the headline numbers in the summary at the
> front.
> - The difference between early and late registration prices is fairly
> narrow (EUR400 vs EUR465). This will contribute to late registration,
> to some extent.
> - Folks have already commented that the headline profit doesn't go up
> very much between the 600 and 1000 delegate scenarios. Increasing the
> late registration fees would help with that.
> - In general, I am finding it hard to figure out why the headline
> profit doesn't go up more between 600 and 1000 delegates. I see EUR150
> / delegate in variable costs, so 400 extra delegates at EUR400 each
> should drive about EUR100K (400 * (EUR400 - EUR150)) in extra profit.
> So I'd like to hear some commentary about that just to feel sure the
> arithmetic is all good.
> - The venue expense is really high, nothing to do about that, it's a
> world class city. However, it'll be a new conference record. Because
> it's a large fixed cost there is a higher downside risk if numbers
> don't materialize. I don't see there's much to do about that, though.
> - The early/late registration numbers don't match prior experience,
> they assume more early registration proportionally than we've ever had
> before. That's actually a good thing though, since it further
> understates revenue, which means, again, the budget is more profitable
> than you'd expect looking at the headline figure alone.
> - The registration fees differ from those presented in the wiki, are
> these the new proposed fees or old, superseded ones?
> 
> Anyhow, one line summary:
> 
> - Looks pretty good to me. As usual, lining up the sponsorship docket
> remains the critical piece that the LOC has the most control over.
> Clarification on the proposed prices (wiki or budget) would be good,
> but it all looks very solid.
> 
> Paul