[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Sat Jul 6 09:47:04 PDT 2013

I think Andrews suggestion has a lot of merit. It could also be extended to
include the percentage retained by a local chapter where they are organising

Steven Feldman
KnowWhere Consulting
www.knowwhereconsulting.co.uk
http://twitter.com/stevenfeldman

+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jul 2013, at 14:15, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:

 Hi Jeroen, Cameron, All

I've always wondered how this worked for past events as it seemed quite
secretive. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in the community in this regard.

For what it's worth, let the record show that we did due diligence as best
we could beforehand including talking with past chairs & Daniel as OSGeo's
treasurer. Thank you again for helping us! My personal opinion is that
clarity here will be a lasting benefit to OSGeo & future organizers alike.

We have proposed something we felt was workable within a credible budget.
Jeroen, it sounds like you might feel a percentage might make more sense
for clarity. If so, what percentage do you feel is appropriate? Perhaps it
is appropriate to consider a percentage when the organizer covers any loss
and one for when OSGeo covers the loss.

Kind regards,

Andrew

On 07/06/2013 02:41 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:

 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130706/1f0ae10f/attachment-0001.html>