[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT
Michael Terner
mgt at appgeo.com
Tue Mar 15 05:17:54 PDT 2016
Venka:
Thanks for the fair questions and thanks to the board for the serious
consideration of our request.
Steven, thanks for the general outline of a response and an enumeration of
our request. Your four points are entirely accurate and indeed several
people guided us to examine the Bonn agreement as a template for an
OSGeo/LOC agreement. This is precisely what we did, although in our case,
and unlike Bonn, the BLOC is not a legal entity and thus as with some past
conferences our PCO is part of the agreement as our "financial agent". So
here are a few additional details on the four main points:
1. *Names*: Our agreement has three parties: OSGeo, the Boston Location
Organizing Committee (BLOC) and Delaney Meeting & Event Management, our
PCO, who is acting as our financial agent.
2. *Seed funding*: We are asking for approval of up to maximum of
$70,000 of advances. As per the email threads, we anticipate doing this
through two separate requests. The first would be for $20,000 +/-
immediately following our hoped for approval of the agreement. The second
would be for the remaining $50,000 after the Bonn Conference concludes and
as we begin to ramp up at a faster pace (and as deposits come due).
3. *Additional guarantee*: Again, we followed the Bonn agreement model,
and as Steven points out the "total exposure" for OSGeo between the
advances and additional guarantee are the same for both Boston and Bonn. I
would also observe that the known precedent of OSGeo providing these
guarantees was something we considered strongly in forming our bid. Indeed,
both the BLOC and OSGeo are "in this together" with substantial "skin in
the game" and we are both strongly motivated for a superior and financially
successful event. We will work tirelessly to ensure Boston continues the
FOSS4G streak of being financially successful.
4. *Contractual clauses*: As has happened over the years, we would
certainly urge OSGeo to continue building on the template agreement and
these clauses provide important *mutual *protections as well as
providing a framework for cost-effective dispute resolution in the unlikely
event it is needed. They are standard clauses, but they also articulate
important principles.
Last, please consider the BLOC to have a strong +1 to Dirk's suggestion
that OSGeo look at an insurance approach for FOSS4G that could be designed
to cover future events and could leverage the good financial record of past
FOSS4G's. This would be one more thing that the "next conference" (e.g.,
2018) would not have to start from scratch with. Along those lines, we very
much appreciate Cameron resuscitating the "Priorities for Conference
Committee" thread, and anticipate chiming in over the coming weekend.
Indeed, the "starting from scratch" issues are something that are
resonating with our team.
Please let us know if you have any further questions, or need
clarifications on the points made above. We remain very hopeful that we can
receive Board approval *this week*. And, we are also hopeful that if we do
receive that approval it will be provided with some guidance on "what comes
next" in terms of putting signatures on the agreement and formally
initiating the financial request for an advance. The signatures part is
most important as we continue to face a near term deadline for signing an
agreement with our venue that will legally secure the date.
Thanks in advance...
MT & the BLOC
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com>
wrote:
> Thank you Steven,
>
> This is a clear statement and an improvement of the contract in relation
> to last year in relation to exposed risk.
>
> i.m.h.o. this should pass the board's decision for this event. If the
> board should have still questions about the contract in general, we
> should discuss them and formulate an advise for improvement for future
> events.
> One improvement could be that OSGeo get insured for the extra exposed
> risk (for future events), based on the financial history of all the
> FOSS4G events in the past.
>
> Dirk.
>
>
> On 14-03-16 16:39, Steven Feldman wrote:
> > Venda, Board
> >
> > The proposed agreement is identical to the one that OSGeo has entered
> into with Bonn for 2016, with the following variations:
> >
> > 1. The names
> > 2. The seed funding is up to £70,000 not $57.500
> > 3. The advance is for up to $45,000 not $57,500 (overall the total
> exposure is the same as 2016 at $115,000)
> > 4. The insertion of Mitigation, Indemnification and Arbitration clauses
> which I understand are standard clauses in US agreements of this type and
> apply equally to both parties.
> >
> > The additional guarantee is intended to cover the very unlikely
> circumstance that the FOSS4G is financially unsuccessful. If the event
> loses money OSGeo is at risk of losing our seed money and an additional
> $45,000 up to a maximum exposure of $115,000. This agreement limits our
> exposure to $115,000 previously we had potentially unlimited exposure.
> >
> > I hope this helps the board in considering this motion
> >
> > Cheers
> > ______
> > Steven
> >
> >
> >> On 14 Mar 2016, at 14:36, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Micheal, Guido and all,
> >>
> >> The agreement of seed funding was presented by Guido
> >> at the Board meeting on 10 March, 2016 and the Board
> >> members requested for further clarification especially
> >> about the "additional guarantee".
> >>
> >> Since all the board members are not following conference
> >> mailing list, I would request that Micheal of Guido
> >> to provide a brief summary of the request including
> >> clarification on the "additional guarantee" and also
> >> link to any relevant documents. This will help the
> >> board members to get a clearer understanding and
> >> facilitate to taking timely decision.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Venka
> >>
> >> On 2016/03/10 2:51, Michael Terner wrote:
> >>> Eli:
> >>> Thanks for the pointer to SVN, Guido is versed in these technologies
> and
> >>> will act as our "user" and POC on this (and you've seen he's already
> chimed
> >>> in to this effect). We will do our part to document our experiences and
> >>> make everything available via SVN.
> >>>
> >>> Also, apologies for the "FOSSGIS e.V." reference; we understood what
> it was
> >>> and attempted to excise them all from "our version" of the document.
> >>> Apparently we missed one so thanks for the heads-up. As per Steven's
> note,
> >>> his latest version with the lower "additional guarantee" amount should
> have
> >>> this corrected already.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again to all for your assistance on this.
> >>>
> >>> MT
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Guido Stein <gstein at appgeo.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hey Eli,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be happy to help with this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me know the credentials and I will do my best to update as we get
> >>>> these official documents squared away.
> >>>>
> >>>> -guido
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:22 PM Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Michael,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you or someone on the BLOC able to use svn? If so, I'd like to
> >>>>> give them access to http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/ so that
> things
> >>>>> like these documents can be stored there (at least once finalized and
> >>>>> approved).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "FOSSGIS e.V." is a German organization/corporation/nonprofit
> >>>>> associated with the FOSSGIS conference and Bonn LOC. They are not a
> >>>>> party to this agreement and all mention of them should be removed.
> >>>>> Please revised the documents accordingly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eli
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Steven:
> >>>>>> Thanks for keeping this moving and the good questions, suggestions
> and
> >>>>>> observations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Board:
> >>>>>> Thanks very much for taking this up on short notice. We really
> >>>>> appreciate
> >>>>>> the attention.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To Steven's questions/suggestions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> YES, we are comfortable changing the "additional guarantee"
> downward to
> >>>>>> match the Bonn "total value." Indeed, we were "connecting the dots"
> >>>>> based on
> >>>>>> the Bonn template, and had not completed a full risk assessment.
> Steven
> >>>>>> makes a very good point that the "insurance policies" that we can
> pursue
> >>>>>> after we have an agreement will help better quantify "actual risk"
> and
> >>>>>> exposure. We are comfortable proceeding with what Steven proposes
> (i.e.,
> >>>>>> $115k max), and if we feel an alteration is necessary/warranted
> we'll
> >>>>> bring
> >>>>>> that back to conference dev at a later time. Indeed, our nearest
> term
> >>>>> need
> >>>>>> is to formally enter into agreement so that we can secure our venue
> via
> >>>>> our
> >>>>>> PCO. So, YES, $115k (i.e., $70k advance, $45k "additional
> guarantee") is
> >>>>>> good. Thank you.
> >>>>>> YES, we appreciate your understanding and open mindedness to the
> legal
> >>>>>> clauses (thank you Darrell for the +1 on that). Ultimately, these
> all
> >>>>>> protect both OSGeo and the LOC/PCO and/or show a preference for
> >>>>>> non-litigious dispute resolution. Over time, these might be
> considered
> >>>>> as
> >>>>>> additions to the "template agreement". And, we welcome further
> >>>>> review/input
> >>>>>> from people familiar with contracts/agreements.
> >>>>>> As Steven relays, our PCO reviewed and was comfortable with the
> >>>>> agreement's
> >>>>>> existing language on guarantees. She only asked that the additional
> >>>>> clauses
> >>>>>> be added. And, as per above, if we perform a more detailed risk
> >>>>> assessment
> >>>>>> it sounds like there is an avenue to re-approach Conf Dev on
> increasing
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> guarantee.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Indeed, OSGeo's very good 10 year record of having strong
> conferences
> >>>>> should
> >>>>>> help moderate insurance costs. And the BLOC has every intention of
> >>>>> extending
> >>>>>> that success with Boston.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sincerely and with thanks...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> MT & the BLOC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The additional guarantee for Bonn was based upon a risk analysis at
> >>>>>>> different points in the build up to the conference and an estimate
> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> maximum exposure if the event had to be cancelled or proceeded
> with a
> >>>>> lower
> >>>>>>> than viable attendance. It was not automatically equal to the seed
> >>>>> funding.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don’t want to just negotiate you down to a lower figure. Can you
> and
> >>>>>>> your PCO consider the exposure at different points and come up
> with a
> >>>>>>> revised additional guarantee that you need. If you will be
> offsetting
> >>>>> any
> >>>>>>> additional risk through an insurance policy it might be worth
> >>>>> exploring the
> >>>>>>> premium versus excess ratios to come up with the most efficient
> balance
> >>>>>>> between an OSGeo additional guarantee and insurance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In my motion to the CC I asked for approval for the seed funds but
> did
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>> mention the ‘additional guarantee’. Given time pressures I am
> going to
> >>>>>>> submit a proposal to the Board for consideration at tomorrow
> meeting
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> seed funds of $70k and an additional guarantee of up to $45k i.e. a
> >>>>> total
> >>>>>>> exposure of $115k which is the same level of guarantee offered to
> Bonn
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> this year. If you come up with a different level of additional
> >>>>> guarantee or
> >>>>>>> the CC objects I will have to go back to the board and ask them to
> >>>>> adapt the
> >>>>>>> motion subsequently.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Darrell has suggested, in a separate mail in this thread, that the
> >>>>>>> additional ‘legal’ paras are standard clauses, unless someone else
> >>>>> objects I
> >>>>>>> am happy to forward the agreement (with additional guarantee
> amended)
> >>>>> to the
> >>>>>>> board for approval.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Darrell also raised the question of how OSGeo can limit it’s
> liability
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the event that the PCO or the LOC undertakes irrevocable
> commitments in
> >>>>>>> excess of the agreed sum. My understanding is that the agreement is
> >>>>>>> primarily between OSGeo and the PCO with the LOC acting as our
> agent,
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> PCO by signing this agreement accepts that OSGeo liability is
> limited
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> $115k (or whatever sum we agree) and will take necessary steps
> (i.e.
> >>>>>>> insurance to mitigate any risks). While we there is some
> uncertainty
> >>>>> about
> >>>>>>> the enforceability of this agreement or its outcome, it is a lot
> >>>>> better than
> >>>>>>> we had previously where nearly everything was done on the basis of
> a
> >>>>>>> ‘gentleman’s agreement’ - that said, so far no global FOSS4G has
> had
> >>>>> to call
> >>>>>>> on OSGeo to bail them out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have copied the Board into this mail so that they are fully
> aware of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> background and our discussions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ______
> >>>>>>> Steven
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 20:42, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Totally fair questions. Here's where these things came from:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regarding the "advance" and the guarantee: We followed the form of
> how
> >>>>>>> Bonn was setup. In the Bonn template "schedule" that was shared
> with us
> >>>>>>> there was $57,500 for the "advance" and $57,500 for the "additional
> >>>>>>> guarantee". Then the schedule identified $115,000 for the "Maximum
> >>>>> total
> >>>>>>> OSGeo financial exposure.". The previous threads had identified
> our
> >>>>> total
> >>>>>>> "maximum advance" as $70,000 (that we would seek in two
> installments).
> >>>>> Since
> >>>>>>> the "additional guarantee" had not been discussed explicitly I
> >>>>> followed the
> >>>>>>> "Bonn model" and had the additional guarantee match the advance
> >>>>> payment,
> >>>>>>> i.e., the $70,000; for a total exposure of $140,000. If that's not
> >>>>>>> appropriate, or the "additional guarantee"; or "total exposure"
> needs
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> back down we will figure it out with your guidance.
> >>>>>>> Regarding the "legal" language: In reviewing the Bonn agreement we
> were
> >>>>>>> both pleased and a little surprised that there weren't more "terms
> and
> >>>>>>> conditions". We're all for simplicity and clarity. That said, our
> PCO,
> >>>>>>> Delaney Meeting & Event Management (DMEM) made these suggestions as
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>>> will be a signatory to the agreement. In short, these are common
> sense
> >>>>>>> protections that are routine in almost all contracts. We certainly
> >>>>>>> understand and respect your potential need to have additional
> review,
> >>>>> and we
> >>>>>>> certainly reviewed the language but did not feel that engaging
> legal
> >>>>> counsel
> >>>>>>> was necessary due to the fact that these clauses are so commonplace
> >>>>> (i.e., I
> >>>>>>> have seen this language many times before) and because they protect
> >>>>> both
> >>>>>>> parties to the agreement. Here's my layman's summary of what they
> mean
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> why they are important (and this is in no way is designed to
> dissuade
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> from getting the reviews OSGeo thinks are necessary):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mitigation Clause/Force Majeure: If something terrible and beyond
> the
> >>>>>>> control of either of us happens (e.g., crazy weather; terrorism
> that
> >>>>> locks
> >>>>>>> down travel; etc.) that causes the event to be cancelled late in
> the
> >>>>> game,
> >>>>>>> there is a means to do that. As per later in the document, we will
> have
> >>>>>>> "cancellation insurance" so that if this happens neither party
> loses
> >>>>> already
> >>>>>>> spent $'s.
> >>>>>>> Indemnification: Is a mutual protection that if either party is
> acting
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> bad faith or shows negligence or blatant incompetence, that causes
> >>>>> damage
> >>>>>>> and as a result the other party (i.e., the one that did not cause
> the
> >>>>>>> problem) is sued, the party at fault is responsible for those
> damages
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> must indemnify the non-responsible party.
> >>>>>>> Arbitration: If there is a dispute, this clause indicates that it
> will
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> resolved through arbitration, as opposed to a lawsuit. Arbitration
> is
> >>>>>>> generally a quicker and less costly process (at least in the USA).
> >>>>>>> Event insurance: We will obtain insurance to cover both
> cancellation
> >>>>>>> exposure and liability that may result from this event. This is
> >>>>> commonplace
> >>>>>>> and our PCO is familiar with these types of policies and affordable
> >>>>> means of
> >>>>>>> obtaining them. These costs are included in our budget.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Even with these additions, this agreement remains very lean.
> >>>>> Obviously, we
> >>>>>>> do not want to add unnecessary complexity or slow things down.
> Rather,
> >>>>> our
> >>>>>>> intent is to have a solid agreement that protects both parties and
> >>>>> helps to
> >>>>>>> cement a productive and collaborative partnership.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please let us know if there's any other information you require; or
> >>>>>>> anything else we can do to clarify things. If this needs more
> thorough
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> time consuming review we regret that, but also accept it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please let us know what comes next, and in particular whether we
> should
> >>>>>>> revise our request for the size of the "additional guarantee".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks to all for the work you're putting into this...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> MT
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Steven Feldman <
> shfeldman at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The overall guarantee including seed funding is $140k - I do not
> >>>>> recall
> >>>>>>>> this high a number being advised previously. Could you clarify.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While I do not have any fundamental disagreement with the clauses
> that
> >>>>>>>> you have added at the end, they will need to be reviewed by
> someone
> >>>>> more
> >>>>>>>> legally qualified than me which may incur both costs and delay.
> >>>>>>>> ______
> >>>>>>>> Steven
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 16:43, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Conference Dev Committee:
> >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your support of the motion to provide our
> team
> >>>>>>>> seed funding.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As promised earlier in the thread, attached is a "draft agreement"
> >>>>>>>> between OSGeo and the Boston Location Organizing Committee
> (BLOC), as
> >>>>> well
> >>>>>>>> as with our PCO, Delaney Meeting & Event Management (DMEM). We are
> >>>>> hopeful
> >>>>>>>> that this is on target and can be passed on to the Board in time
> for
> >>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> meeting on Thursday. We are assuming that Conference Dev will
> bring
> >>>>> this to
> >>>>>>>> the Board's attention.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here's what you will find in the attached document (attached as
> .DOC,
> >>>>>>>> .ODT and .PDF):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Our re-work of the Bonn Template Agreement to include our specific
> >>>>>>>> requests for advance and guarantees; as well as our "percentage of
> >>>>> profits
> >>>>>>>> returned to OSGeo" language that was also contained in our
> proposal
> >>>>> (and is
> >>>>>>>> slightly different than 90%).
> >>>>>>>> Some common-sense legal terms that were suggested by DMEM for
> things
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>>> Force Majeur, mutual indemnification and arbitration of disputes.
> We
> >>>>> also
> >>>>>>>> affirm our commitment to purchase our own cancellation and
> liability
> >>>>>>>> insurance.
> >>>>>>>> Attachment 1 which is structured as a PCO contract between OSGeo
> and
> >>>>> DMEM
> >>>>>>>> on behalf of the BLOC, allowing DMEM to serve as our financial
> agent
> >>>>> and as
> >>>>>>>> the entity that would sign the commitment with our venue (this was
> >>>>>>>> distributed earlier).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Given the nature of this arrangement we have three signature
> lines for
> >>>>>>>> OSGeo, the BLOC, and also DMEM, on behalf of the BLOC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any question, or need anything
> further.
> >>>>>>>> And again, thanks in advance for carrying this forward to the
> Board.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> MT & the BLOC
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential
> or
> >>>>>>>> legally privileged information. If you are not an intended
> recipient
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>>>> otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use,
> >>>>> copy,
> >>>>>>>> distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information
> >>>>> contained
> >>>>>>>> in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this
> message
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
> >>>>> e-mail and
> >>>>>>>> delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics,
> Inc.
> >>>>>>>> (AppGeo).<OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT v3.odt><OSGeo +
> BostonLOC
> >>>>>>>> Agreement DRAFT v3.pdf><OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT
> >>>>>>>> v3.doc>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Michael Terner
> >>>>>>> Executive Vice President
> >>>>>>> 617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
> >>>>>>> Applied Geographics, Inc.
> >>>>>>> 24 School Street, Suite 500
> >>>>>>> Boston, MA 02108
> >>>>>>> www.AppGeo.com
> >>>>>>> Please come to Boston for Global FOSS4G 2017:
> http://2017.foss4g.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or
> >>>>>>> legally privileged information. If you are not an intended
> recipient or
> >>>>>>> otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use,
> copy,
> >>>>>>> distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information
> >>>>> contained
> >>>>>>> in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this
> message
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
> >>>>> e-mail and
> >>>>>>> delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics,
> Inc.
> >>>>>>> (AppGeo).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Michael Terner
> >>>>>> Executive Vice President
> >>>>>> 617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
> >>>>>> Applied Geographics, Inc.
> >>>>>> 24 School Street, Suite 500
> >>>>>> Boston, MA 02108
> >>>>>> www.AppGeo.com
> >>>>>> Please come to Boston for Global FOSS4G 2017:
> http://2017.foss4g.org/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or
> >>>>> legally
> >>>>>> privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or
> >>>>> otherwise
> >>>>>> authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy,
> >>>>> distribute,
> >>>>>> disclose or take any action based on the information contained in
> this
> >>>>>> e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and
> >>>>> material in
> >>>>>> error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
> delete
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>> message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Board mailing list
> > Board at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> >
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> ir. Dirk Frigne
> CEO @geosparc
>
> Geosparc n.v.
> Brugsesteenweg 587
> B-9030 Ghent
> Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
> GSM: +32 495 508 799
>
> http://www.geomajas.org
> http://www.geosparc.com
>
> @DFrigne
> be.linkedin.com/in/frigne
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
--
*Michael Terner*
*Executive Vice President*
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
www.AppGeo.com
--
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally
privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise
authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute,
disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this
e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material
in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete
this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20160315/d09080d7/attachment.htm>
More information about the Board
mailing list