[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

[Eddie Pickle]

Dear Cameron,

This may be a misunderstanding. What we are proposing for proceeds going to
OSGeo is, so far as we can determine, the same mechanism used for past
events including Denver. Our intent in our proposal is to offer OSGeo the
very highest proceeds possible, and to minimize any downside.

Our proposal holds registration, workshop, and sponsorship prices pretty
much the same as from Denver even though it will be 3 years previous by
2014. In our budget, we have included increasing contributions to OSGeo as
the conference is more successful. You’ll note at the 900 attendee mark,
the payment to OSGeo is $50K. For 1,000 attendees, we anticipate a payment
of approximately $75K.

We already have Platinum sponsorship commitments from two organizations
(OpenGeo and Radiant Blue) with a demonstrated track record of FOSS4G
sponsorship. Plus, we believe the accessibility of our Washington, DC
location for international, regional and local attendees will maximize
attendance and outreach opportunities.

Our proposal insulates OSGeo from financial risk from a loss. At the same
time it offers a return to OSGeo comparable to past events. This is no
small thing in today's economic uncertainty.

This proposal is backed by a professional team who organize events like
FOSS4G for a living. For an event as important as FOSS4G, we believe such a
team dramatically decreases risk.

As evident from our many letters of support, FOSS4G 2014 in Washington D.C.
will attract diverse participants, sponsors, and speakers. That should lead
to the kind of high quality program that will be, of course, the main
assurance of solid financial success.

Let me know if I can provide any further clarification.

Sincerely,

Eddie

J. Edward Pickle
Chief Executive Officer
OpenGeo
http://opengeo.org
epickle at opengeo.org
703-608-0200 - Mobile



On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 3/07/2013 10:37 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>
>> - What happens with the net profit or loss beyond the OSGeo contribution?
>>>
>>
>> The Eclipse Foundation is prepared to cover the loss. OSGeo would not be
>> expected to do so.
>>
>> Should the event be more successful than the budget predicts, there will
>> be some balancing of re-investing to enhance priority areas as determined
>> by the committee.
>>
>> Should there be modest profit beyond that, the Foundation humbly requests
>> it.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I don't think they'll mind me sharing that we did
>> ask advice from Daniel Morissette & Peter Batty about the best way to
>> approach this. The advice was to keep it simple & clear which I hope we've
>> accomplished.
>>
>
> Speaking as an OSGeo Board member, I'm seriously concerned that proposed
> profit from our global FOSS4G is not being retained by OSGeo. OSGeo runs on
> a shoestring budget, and the FOSS4G conference is OSGeo's primary income
> source. Passing this income source across to the Eclipse foundation is
> likely to have a substantial impact on OSGeo's viability (Eg: we would have
> to reduce sponsoring code sprints and the like).
>
> I request that sharing of the budget be re-considered. I consider it an
> issue at show-stopper status.
>
> More details about board priorities here:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/**Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#**Board_Priorities<http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Board_Priorities>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/**mailman/listinfo/conference_**dev<http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130705/03be841d/attachment-0001.html>