[Board] foss4g europe

[Jeff McKenna]

Thanks for these comments Steven.  I've read it twice and am letting it
all sink in. (sometimes better than me striking back saying I don't
agree etc.)

Talk soon,

-jeff



On 2013-11-21 6:45 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have been following this discussion with a lot of interest as it
> covers several topics that have come up during the last year as we were
> planning FOSS4G 2013. My comments are offered as both a past FOSS4G
> chair and as a newcomer to the OSGeo who can maybe bring an outsiders
> view and a little commercial perspective.
> 
> I think there are 3 interlinked topics here - 
> 
>  1. OSGeo's funding needs and funding model
>  2. The relationship of regional events and the global annual FOSS4G
>     (and implicitly the level of control/authority/guidance that OSGeo
>     offers)
>  3. The "ownership" of the FOSS4G brand
> 
> 
> *1. OSGeo's funding needs and funding model*
> 
> Inevitably there is potential for much discussion about how light or
> substantial an organisation OSGeo should be and what level of funding is
> needed to support that organisation. I am not going to go down that
> rabbit hole in this mail. However it is clear that even the lightest
> organisation will need some level of funding and if we aspire to support
> projects, codesprints, extend outreach or education activities and
> provide seed funding for new chapters and events we will need some funding.
> 
> Unless we identify a new funding model the 2 primary sources of funding
> will be direct donations from sponsoring organisations and the surplus
> generated from events. Consequently I would suggest that all events that
> sit under the OSGeo umbrella and either use it's branding (OSGeo or
> FOSS4G) or request seed funding and/or financial guarantees should be
> expected to contribute some of the surplus that they generate back to OSGeo.
> 
> *2. The relationship of regional events and the global annual FOSS4G*
> 
> Events generate a surplus largely from sponsorship. It is difficult to
> even break even on the costs of a venue, catering, AV and other costs
> from the fees charged to delegates without increasing fees to a level
> that will discourage attendance and conflict with our outreach objectives. 
> 
> The level of sponsorship income is related to the size and profile of
> the audience and consequently the global FOSS4G should be the biggest
> draw for delegates and have the greatest potential for sponsorship
> income and surplus. In this regard there is some reason to argue that
> regional events should be timed and marketed so as not to diminish the
> impact of the global event. 
> 
> We were concerned that FOSS4G-NA and FOSS4G-CEE might have an adverse
> effect on the results for FOSS4G 2013, that did not happen and delegate
> numbers and sponsorship income proved to be very good (we will publish
> our results shortly, the accounts are just being finalised). 
> 
> That said there did not appear to be any grand plan on the timing and
> marketing of the regional events alongside the global event. If we want
> the global event to be a significant source of funding for our work then
> we need to have some process to ensure that other OSGeo regional or
> local events are coordinated with this in mind. Of course no one can or
> should prevent a group of enthusiasts from organising an event around
> open source geo but if that group wants to claim affiliation or
> endorsement from OSGeo then a precondition should be that the event is
> scheduled to fit in with other preplanned events (time and geography
> influence this).
> 
> *3. The "ownership" of the FOSS4G brand*
> 
> If you search for FOSS4G in your favourite search engine or on twitter
> you will have to dig down further than I was prepared to go to find a
> usage of the term that does not relate to OSGeo. We may have adopted a
> term or the title of an event that pre-existed the creation of OSGeo but
> I think that by now we can make a fair claim to FOSS4G being a brand
> "owned" by OSGeo. I am sure that the rest of the world considers FOSS4G
> to be synonymous with OSGeo. After all "Free and Open Source Software
> for Geo" sums up what we believe in and what we do. I strongly support
> the previous suggestion that we should explore the possibility of
> getting a trademark (or the appropriate protection) for the brand.
> 
> If the proposition that FOSS4G is a de facto brand of OSGeo is accepted
> then it follows that OSGeo should exercise some control (hopefully with
> a light touch) over how the brand is used and by whom.
> 
> *4. So what do we do?*
> *
> *
> If the Board and the wider community agree with most of the above then
> the priority would be for the conference group to draft a framework for
> the coordination of the global, regional and national events, the use of
> the OSGeo and FOSS4G brands, the provision of seed funding and the
> distribution of event surpluses. 
> 
> I am willing to kick that off if the board and conference team wish and
> if others who are more community experienced will  participate.
> 
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
> 
>