[Board] Board task: finalize liability agreement with FOSS4G 2016 committee
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Mon Oct 5 13:44:43 PDT 2015
I'm not blocking anything.
I just want that a discussion in the board happen. Did you call a vote?
Maybe i've missed it. You ask for a comment and i did it. I just want a
discussion and to understand what is the point of view of people.. not just
+1 or -1. I have motivated several time my view of things but not many
comment was raised.
I talked with Till in Seoul and i'm not blocking him and Bonn.
So what is the decison? Are we going to give 100k euro for all the coming
events with 100K max liability? What is the % of revenue thay go back to
osgeo? What are the obligations for organizers? Hosting the osgeo community
meeting in the middle of the event with no other presentations or things
going on? There is a maximum fee? Shall the conference pay for president
flight and allowance?
The document addressed this? This are to me the rules we need... and not
just passing a motion and then the next year find out to be in the same
Just my 1 cent of swiss franc ;-)
Il 05/Ott/2015 22:12, "Jeff McKenna" <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> ha
> Hi Maxi,
> What do you mean by "rule", can you give an example? The document that
> was created by the OSGeo Conference Committee, the Bon LOC, and some board
> members (including myself) will be used for each upcoming FOSS4G event
> (that we have such a document now is a great thing). I am just wondering
> what you are missing, what is wrong with that document? Related to what I
> was saying about the issue with timing before the Seoul event, have your
> past concerns now been addressed? If yes, then maybe we can move forward
> (+1) with that document, and then the Board can create a "rule" in the next
> 10 months or so. I think many of us worked very hard behind the scenes to
> get that document in place, and I see no need to delay the 2016 planning
> because the board needs to make a rule. Because of this delay, the 2016
> committee is looking at other options, which include less profit returned
> to us, for own own event, so please let us not delay. Please explain
> On 2015-10-05 3:56 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>> Dear all
>> What i would like is that the board defines a rule that is valid for
>> Bonn but also for the next meetings.
>> I think we cannot handle case by case without a defined rule that is
>> impartial and guarantee transparence in decision making.
>> What do you board members think about?
>> Il 05/Ott/2015 19:24, "Jeff McKenna" <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> ha scritto:
>> Hello Board members,
>> This will be the first public task of the new Board, and may be the
>> most important one we deal with all year. And yes, it is extremely
>> time sensitive.
>> Some background (instead of pointing to 5 different threads spanning
>> as many different mailing lists):
>> The FOSS4G Bonn local committee needs OSGeo to financially guarantee
>> the event. The OSGeo Conference Committee worked very hard on
>> producing an agreement, that passed many keen experienced eyes, both
>> on the OSGeo side as well as on the Bonn committee side. This
>> agreement was approved by the entire OSGeo Conference Committee and
>> the Bonn local committee, and 8 of the 9 OSGeo Board members. One
>> OSGeo Board member voted -1. The original agreement exists at:
>> As for past FOSS4G agreements, Seoul was the first time that the
>> OSGeo Board had a direct signed agreement with the local committee,
>> between Sanghee and myself, agreeing on such details as profit
>> sharing; for all of the other FOSS4G events, those details were
>> handled in the agreement between the professional conference
>> organizing company (PCO). Steven Feldman compiled some details from
>> some of the recent FOSS4G events, in a Google spreadsheet (I just
>> sent each board member an invite to that document).
>> At the time that this 2016 agreement was being initially proposed,
>> it was before FOSS4G Seoul, and it was honestly a little tricky to
>> be signing such a commitment before we knew the outcome of the
>> FOSS4G Seoul event (like any event, we could have lost money). But
>> now, I feel everything is more clear for the Board: FOSS4G Seoul was
>> successful, the break-even point was 400 attendees, and we went over
>> that to roughly 560 attendees. So OSGeo doesn't have to worry about
>> that, and now we can financially guarantee the 2016 Bonn event, for
>> 100,000 euros, as was originally proposed.
>> I want to make sure that each Board member supports this, and I will
>> personally do my best to meet privately with whoever has questions.
>> Maxi, now that we are through FOSS4G Seoul, do you yourself have any
>> concerns not handled now? If you do (or any Board member) I suggest
>> that we meet through Google Hangout on this Thursday. Possible time:
>> (sorry Venka/Sanghee that time is not do-able for you, but you can
>> voice your opinions here or to me privately, sorry about this one
>> meeting time)
>> I'm getting many direct emails on how this is important for the 2016
>> committee. We OSGeo must get this agreement passed. It is on next
>> week's Board agenda, but I hope we can solve this this week. It
>> will be a team effort.
>> Thanks all,
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Board