[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Fri Jul 5 23:41:08 PDT 2013

Hi all,
Good discussion! Signs are positive from the feedback to Cameron's question. I agree with him that the proposal in not clear on this point while it is very relevant for OSGeo. I suggest both proposals ensure the reviewed versions are very explicit on what is done with profit. It should be clear if percentages are used, fixed numbers etc. and where the remaining money goes. 
I indeed expect percentages of profit to go to others like the Eclipse Foundation (and the largest percentage to osgeo) while any left over in the accounts when closing them always goes to OSGeo. 

Cheers, Jeroen

Op 6 jul. 2013 om 05:06 heeft Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi Cameron,
> 
> A few comments in-line.
> 
> On 07/05/2013 08:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Good stuff. We're really glad you had a chance to read it. Thanks.
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> This is a simple misunderstanding. It is linked to profit. The number of attendees is a convenient handle for referring to a given budget scenario.
> 
> We strived to use the same or similar mechanism for calculating payment to OSGeo as past events. Unfortunately there is precious little transparency as to what this actually was. Perhaps this will be a very helpful discussion to bring more clarity here?
> 
>> 
>> * The offer of protecting OSGeo from financial risk is valuable to OSGeo, though not essential.
> 
> OK, great. We didn't think it was essential, but hoped it would be viewed positively and seen as a sign of considerable good faith.
> 
>> * 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).
> 
> I think this is likely a misunderstanding as well. To illustrate, what happened to the profit in excess of what was paid to OSGeo by FOSS4G in Denver? This is what I meant by any modest profit.
> 
> Eddie outlined that at 1K attendees, we anticipate a payment of around $75K. So far as we can see, this is comparable to the best returns OSGeo has ever received but without risk this time and doing our best to keep registration and other costs as low as they possibly can be.
> 
> We've got a very experienced team, strong and diverse support, the ideal location, and a detailed and credible plan... all the pieces for FOSS4G to be a huge success in Washington D.C. in 2014. We hope the selection committee agrees and we really appreciate the time taken to review our proposal.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Andrew
> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130706/76a89f15/attachment.html>