[Board] Fw: [OSGeo-Conf] Getting the organization for 2014 settled

Tue Aug 27 13:05:03 PDT 2013

Skip the commission-paid sponsorship sales person (doesn't fit our model / sponsor profile).
Different companies have different pricing models, but $/delegate or %revenue or a mixture are not uncommon.
And yes, somewhere from $30K to $60K would be what I'd expect the cost to land at.
If you do this w/o any support from a PCO, it will be first time since 2006 that's happened.

P.
>  
> --  
> Paul Ramsey
> http://opengeo.org
> http://postgis.net
>  
>  
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>  
> > If you have a PCO, a commission paid sponsorship sales person and a company to enter into contractual relationships for a percentage of revenues you could be giving up $75k +
> >  
> > Does your budget allow for that? That's close to $100/delegate
> >  
> > I know that in 2013 I have been fortunate to have an amazingly committed team of volunteers who have put in a lot of personal time. Our outgoings and the surplus on the event will reflect their efforts
> >  
> > Steven  
> >  
> > On 27 Aug 2013, at 18:41, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at opengeo.org (mailto:pramsey at opengeo.org)> wrote:
> >  
> > > I'm a bit confused, you have $30K in the budget for a professional
> > > conference organizer, they should be able to be the bank, and signer
> > > of contracts, with the possible exception of the venue, which could be
> > > handled as a one-off using Daniel or Jeff as the signer for OSGeo. Who
> > > is your professional organizing company?
> > >  
> > > P.
> > >  
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org (mailto:darrell at garnix.org)> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > Hi, Board(s), we’d like to follow up to Daniel’s recent e-mail to the board
> > > > list.
> > > >  
> > > > I envision that one of first the tasks of this rep could be to work with you
> > > > to define the best fiscal scenario, and at the same time better document the
> > > > process and contractual relationship between OSGeo and the FOSS4G LOC
> > > > (and/or PCO). There is a good amount of experience from past years to work
> > > > from (see emails from Paul and Peter for instance), so it should be mostly a
> > > > matter of documenting an existing process, and then perhaps come up with a
> > > > template contract that would be used for this year and future years.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > We’ve been discussing this internally, and with Steve Swazee of SharedGeo
> > > > and David Bitner who worked on FOSS4G-NA 2013.
> > > >  
> > > > There are essentially two reasonable alternatives for handling this.
> > > >  
> > > > 1) Have OSGeo be the entity that signs contracts with facilities,
> > > > contractors, etc. With responsibilities and authority delegated as
> > > > appropriate to the LOC.
> > > > 2) Have a second organization be the contracting entity, with proceeds to be
> > > > returned to OSGeo.
> > > >  
> > > > As I understand it (1) has yet to be done. Also, given the state of the
> > > > OSGeo’s tax-exempt status, it’s possible that (1) will trigger a taxable
> > > > event, if the application for tax-exempt status does not go through, or is
> > > > delayed, or found to not be retroactive.
> > > >  
> > > > Option (2) is how FOSS4G-NA was handled, through Steve’s organization,
> > > > SharedGeo. SharedGeo still has funds from FOSS4G-NA, which are ear-marked
> > > > for OSGeo, but not yet transferred to OSGeo. Obviously that can still
> > > > trigger a taxable event, but at least leaves somewhere for the money to sit
> > > > until OSGeo’s tax-exempt status is worked out.
> > > >  
> > > > Long term, I think (1) is clearly the best option. Further, I think OSGeo
> > > > should have one person on staff, even if only part-time, to handle many of
> > > > these details in the future, or there should be an on-going contractual
> > > > relationship with an event management firm to do so.
> > > >  
> > > > If FOSS4G is going to be the primary source of revenue for OSGeo for the
> > > > foreseeable future, then it is foolish to not devote resources to making
> > > > sure that that revenue stream is reliable. If OSGeo fails to do so, there
> > > > *will* be a repeat of 2012. The current structure is simply too haphazard to
> > > > depend on.
> > > >  
> > > > And since now is as good a time as any, as I’ve said on the conference list,
> > > > but I will reiterate here in all caps for emphasis: ONE YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH
> > > > TIME TO ORGANIZE A CONFERENCE THIS SIZE. A paid staff person/organization
> > > > should be planning the conferences at least two, and ideally three years in
> > > > advance. We are very fortunate to be have been able to get the spaces we
> > > > need for 2014, and we should depend on planning, not luck for the future.
> > > >  
> > > > However, the long-term is not here yet, and we still have to deal with
> > > > contracts for FOSS4G 2014, and we need the board to decide whether to take
> > > > option (1) or option (2), and we need them to decide soon. If we’re going to
> > > > pull this off in 13 months, we need to be signing contracts now. (Well,
> > > > really, 12 months ago, but now is what we have.)
> > > >  
> > > > If the board feels that option (2) is the best option, then Steve Swazee of
> > > > SharedGeo has offered to operate FOSS4G 2014 under a similar tax and
> > > > organizational regime as they did for FOSS4G-NA 2013, however Steve feels
> > > > that the 3% of gross revenue SharedGeo received was ultimately inadequate
> > > > and has asked for 7% instead. Under our baseline budget estimates, that is
> > > > about $40,000 – for comparison, if we had to pay 30% taxes on profits under
> > > > our baseline budget that would be $29,000. Obviously that amount will vary
> > > > with the ultimate profitability of the conference.
> > > >  
> > > > I, personally, would like the see the board go with option (1) – and quickly
> > > > (as in immediately) assign a person to work the Portland LOC to hash out
> > > > which responsibilities go where, and then use that as a template for future
> > > > conferences.
> > > >  
> > > > But whichever option the board chooses, I cannot overemphasize the need to
> > > > make the decision and start to act as quickly as possible.
> > > >  
> > > > Darrell
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Board mailing list
> > > > Board at lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org)
> > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Conference_dev mailing list
> > > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org)
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >  
>  
>  