Islandwood Code sprint (was Re: [Board] New MOUs proposed...)

Sun Sep 4 01:45:45 PDT 2011

Excuse brevity and typos, I'm on my phone...

The extra information about the code sprint is useful, especially to us Board newbies, and the fact that the event has turned a profit every time it has been run in the past makes the risk much more acceptable I think.

However, (and excuse the newbie for speaking out of turn), a few things bother me. The first, is that it does set a precedent for people asking for help in the future- what's to stop any local chapter or event organiser asking in future- sure we can always say no but don't we need a framework in place to avoid accusations of favouritism? 

Secondly, this seems like a really big decision to make, and it's being made on the back foot rather than with time and space to consider all the options. That can't be good, surely?

Having said all of that, given the extra info about the event that Michael has provided, if the general feeling is that we can afford it, and it goes to a vote at the F2F then my vote is for it.

In an ideal world, I guess, the foundation would have enough reserves to help coders and chapters alike with events, after all the more throughput and coverage we get at all levels has to be good!

Cheers,

Jo

On 2 Sep 2011, at 21:15, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:

> I agree with Howard's sentiment here.  I'll admit a bias, but I would like to see a much clearer and tighter cycle:
> 
> projects are great ->
> people come to the conference(s) ->
> foundation generates reserves ->
> projects benefit
> 
> I think a sprint is a very concrete way that projects can benefit from being part of the foundation.
> 
> I think the reason the motion didn't pass during the meeting was because there were some outstanding questions about timing and cost of the sprint (mpg has addressed these), general uncertainty about our finances, and a lack of alignment about how those finances should be used.
> 
> I think we can address the remaining parts at the F2F meeting.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 9/2/11 1:56 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> This event (the annual winter North American code sprint) has
>> 
>> a) grassroots organized b) self funded and backed for three years c)
>> been in the black every year d) had its finances *in public view*
>> every year e) had increasing year-over-year attendance
>> 
>> That the board is so uncomfortable with our financial situation that
>> it can't immediately backstop this relatively small event says quite
>> a bit. The sprinters are not looking for a handout, but simply
>> insurance that they're covered in the event that it All Goes Wrong.
>> With the positive history this even has, I would think an insurance
>> underwriter would be confident to write a policy for it. Maybe that
>> alternative should be sought out...
>> 
>> As far as cash flow, is the expected $40K+ profit from #foss4g2011
>> already allocated?  With so much (record?) attendance already
>> registered, we're expected to be profitable here, right?  Again, the
>> sprinters are only asking for a backstop, not a payment of sponsor's
>> funding directly into supporting sprint attendance.
>> 
>> Otherwise, this is very disappointing. Unlike mythical outreach and
>> marketing actives, these types of events provide immediately
>> measurable benefits to the projects that participate by paying a
>> significant part of their own way to attend. If OSGeo can't backstop
>> these types of events, what does the organization exist to do? We
>> always struggle with selling to potential member projects what
>> benefits will be imbued by them by jump over, in, around, and through
>> our incubation process.
>> 
>> Howard
>> 
>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Michael,
>>> 
>>> A few converging challenges for the board popped up during the
>>> discussion (all will be good topics for discussion at the next
>>> meeting), including:
>>> 
>>> * current financial status of OSGeo (lower than budget) * potential
>>> financial liability and timing of the request * budget plans for
>>> 2012 * fundraising plans and ideas * mission of OSGeo -
>>> outreach/marketing vs. developer/project support * OSGeo role in
>>> developing projects and local chapters
>>> 
>>> There were differences in opinion on each of these, so it's easy to
>>> look at the logs and wonder "what the heck just happened?" .. when
>>> it looked like a pretty simple question.  Hope that's not
>>> discouraging!  It is good that these issues are exposed, since they
>>> really need to be addressed on an annual basis anyway.
>>> 
>>> Tyler
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2011-09-02, at 11:26 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The timing at this point is open..  I can down the $12K deposit I
>>>> have in hand whenever I want to, the risk is just that the space
>>>> may no longer be available.
>>>> 
>>>> The balance ($12K) would be due at the time of the event (Feb
>>>> 2012).
>>>> 
>>>> -mpg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Tyler Mitchell
>>>>> [mailto:tmitchell at osgeo.org] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011
>>>>> 11:21 AM To: Frank Warmerdam Cc: mpg at flaxen.com; OSGeo-Board
>>>>> List Subject: Re: [Board] New MOUs proposed...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was wondering about the cash flow timing - "when" as well as
>>>>> the "how much".  E.g. do we need to guarantee the deposit, plus
>>>>> the final bill and when would that be, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tyler
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2011-09-02, at 11:16 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Michael P.
>>>>>> Gerlek<mpg at flaxen.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I see from the logs that the IslandWood sprint funding was
>>>>>>> voted down, but it looks like there were multiple possible
>>>>>>> reasons -- too hard on OSGeo budget, fear of setting
>>>>>>> precedent, ..?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> These are reasonable concerns, certainly, but it's not
>>>>>>> clear to me if the board is looking for more input for me
>>>>>>> still for possible reconsideration at a future meeting, or
>>>>>>> if the issue is now completely
>>>>> closed and done with.
>>>>>>> I'm on a tight timeline here if this is to happen, so
>>>>>>> please let me know if any further action is needed on my
>>>>>>> part.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From my perspective, I want to do a financial review of our
>>>>>> current position first.  If we have adequate reserves I have
>>>>>> no problem providing the guarantee.  One other thing is that
>>>>>> we would need to know an upper bound on the financial
>>>>>> liability.  The motion that was raised was to cover up to
>>>>>> $12K but that struck me as inadequate as I had the impression
>>>>>> the potential liability was more like $20K (even though that
>>>>>> is very unlikely).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My "-1" does not mean that I am against supporting the code
>>>>>> sprint, only that I didn't feel the current motion was
>>>>>> adequate and that I wanted a better idea of our financial
>>>>>> position before committing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My hope is that we can settle this at the F2F in Denver in
>>>>>> two weeks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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    | Geospatial Software Developer
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tim Schaub
> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board