[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Fri Jul 5 17:40:10 PDT 2013

Thank you Eddie for the explanation.

I confess that my prior comments were based on email discussion before 
I'd had a chance to read your proposal, and as such, my comments need 
not have been worded as strongly as I phrased them.

So now that I have read the proposal, here are further financial 
comments/questions:

* At the moment, the budget has a fixed amounts of money allocated to 
OSGeo based upon attendance. I suggest that a fairer allocation of 
profit would be to have OSGeo's earnings directly linked to total profit 
(probably as a percentage). This reduces potential for future animosity 
which may arise if the conference is especially successful (eg by 
attracting more sponsors), where the Eclipse foundation receives a much 
greater share of profits than OSGeo.

* The offer of protecting OSGeo from financial risk is valuable to 
OSGeo, though not essential.

* The budget only estimates up to 900 attendees. What happens if you 
attract 1000+ attendees (which I suggest is reasonably likely)

* In a likely scenario of 900+ delegates, there will be ~ $100,000 
profit. In previous years, OSGeo has been the recipient of such profit. 
As it stands, the Eclipse foundation is "humbly requesting" that OSGeo 
donate ~ half OSGeo's projected annual income to the Eclipse foundation.

I still find this of substantial concern to OSGeo, and request that a 
conversation be opened up to find an alternative where the OSGeo 
Foundation is not stripped of income. (I note that the Eclipse 
foundation has budgeted for staff time to act as a Professional 
Conference Organiser, so is not dependant upon profit in order to 
recover staff costs).

On 06/07/13 02:19, Eddie Pickle wrote:
> 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 <mailto:epickle at opengeo.org>
> 703-608-0200 - Mobile
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Cameron Shorter 
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto: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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130706/eb32406d/attachment.html>