[Board] OSGeo Priorities: Should OSGeo act as a high capital or low capital organisation?

[Michael P. Gerlek]

Definitely low capital -- support the community, not much else.

I'd add item #0: Hire professional accountant and lawyer and immediately resolve all outstanding financial and legal matters.

I'd also amend item #2 and #3 to include "support generally provided only as matching funds"

More importantly, we need to agree on where does our income come from, in tandem with how we spend it.

And, in addition to the two lists of (a) where does $ come from and (b) where does $ go, we should make two lists of where we are agreed that money will NOT come from and where it will NOT go.

-mpg


On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:

> In preparation for the OSGeo Board meeting in a bit over 24 hours, I'd like to suggest some talking points to help us frame what we should focus on as priorities.
> 
> Should OSGeo act as a high capital or low capital organisation?
> 
> Ie, should OSGeo dedicate energy to collecting sponsorship and then passing out these funds to worth OSGeo causes.
> While initially it seems attractive to have OSGeo woe sponsors, because we would all love to have more money to throw at worthy OSGeo goals, the reality is that chasing money is hard work. And someone who can chase OSGeo sponsorship is likely conflicted with chasing sponsorship for their particular workplace. So in practice, to be effective in chasing sponsorship, OSGeo will probably need to hire someone specifically for the role. OSGeo would then need to raise at least enough to cover wages.
> This high capital path is how LocationTech are setting themselves up. It might be successful, but OSGeo is currently not structured as a high capital organisation.
> 
> The path which OSGeo is currently following is the low capital path. Our overheads are very low, which means we waste very little of our volunteer labour on the time consuming task of chasing and managing money. Consequently, any money we do receive (from conference windfalls or similar) goes a long way - and doesn't get eaten up by high overheads. I'd argue that this low capital path is something that is working very well for us, and the path we should continue to pursue.
> 
> So what should be our financial priorities?
> 
> 1. Our primary focus should be to back the major foss4g events, eg: the global foss4g, and regional foss4g events like foss4g-na.  This requires sufficient bank balance to guarantee conference loans. These events should also be our primary source of income.
> 
> 2. Our secondary income priority is to cover all the costs of running osgeo. Bank fees, insurance, infrastructure hosting, etc.
> 
> 2. Our tertiary focus should be to cover related smaller osgeo type events.
> 
> 3. Then with any spare budget, we should use for incidental marketing type activities - paying for non-consumables at conferences (banners etc).
> If we have budget, we could possibly also subsidise consumables (eg LiveDVD printing), but we should not give away these things. We should be asking events to pay for these things, and we should not be paying conference organisors for a booth at events.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
> 
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board