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

[Jeff McKenna]

Jeff McKenna wrote:
> 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.
>>

I should also mention (I wasn't sure how detailed we should be in our 
review) that the Grupo Pacifico fees per registrant appear to be 
different in all 3 documents (v7 of contract, original budget, and 
today's budget).  Am I reading that somehow wrong?

-jeff