[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT
Massimiliano Cannata
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Wed Mar 16 03:19:58 PDT 2016
Dear all,
my vote is +0
You may know, since last year, i'm not inclined to take any risk and sign
anything before the current FOSS4G is closed.
I don't like to be exposed two time.
Anyway, said that my vote is expressed, I have a request related to risk:
- What about US FOSS4G conference in 2017?
- Do you have any information on this?
Maxi
>
>
>
> 2016-03-16 9:35 GMT+01:00 Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com>:
>
>> I already responded to the answers we've received. So:
>> +1 to approve request for FOSS4G 2017
>>
>> I also want to investigate how we can get an insurance for such an
>> additional guarantee for future events. Who is in a good position to
>> take here some action and get some information. Do we have a volunteer
>> who can take action here?
>>
>> Dirk
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16-03-16 03:08, Michael Smith wrote:
>> > ----
>> > Michael Smith
>> > OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
>> > treasurer at osgeo.org <mailto:treasurer at osgeo.org>
>> >
>> > From: Board <board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> > <mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> on behalf of Venkatesh Raghavan
>> > <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>>
>> > Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM
>> > To: OSGeo Board <board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>>
>> > Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding -
>> > IMPORTANT
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 to approve request for FOSS4G 2017
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.orghttp://
>> 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.orghttp://
>> lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://
>> lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://
>> lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Board mailing list
>> >>>> Board at lists.osgeo.orghttp://
>> 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.orghttp://www.geosparc.com
>> >>>
>> >>> @DFrigne
>> >>> be.linkedin.com/in/frigne
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Board mailing list
>> >>> Board at lists.osgeo.orghttp://
>> lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Board mailing list
>> >> Board at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
>> > Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
>
> Istituto scienze della Terra
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>
> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
>
> *www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
>
--
*Massimiliano Cannata*
Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
Responsabile settore Geomatica
Istituto scienze della Terra
Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
*www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20160316/3e07d14d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Board
mailing list