[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT

Tue Mar 15 17:47:35 PDT 2016

Dear Board,

> MOT7: Seek additional clarifications and attend to this agenda item by 
> e-mail within 7 working days 

Pending the approval of the above motion moved at
the Board meeting held on 10 March, I would like to
remind that we have two working days remaining
to seek further clarification concerning the
2017 Boston agreement & seed funding request and
vote for board approval.

Considering the time available and also the fact that I
do not intend to seek further clarification from my side,
I would like to move the motion to approve the request
from BLOC.

Best

Venka

On 2016/03/15 21:17, Michael Terner wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20160316/f03d7493/attachment.htm>