[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

[David Percy]

I always thought that all profit went to OSGeo from the international event!
Did BC, South Africa, Australia, Barcelona, or Denver retain any
profit for the local organizers?

I thought there was talk of retaining profit from REGIONAL events, but
not the international one.
Interesting discussion!
Percy

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>



-- 
David Percy ("Percy")
-Geospatial Data Manager
-Web Map Wrangler
-GIS Instructor
Portland State University
-gisgeek.pdx.edu
-geology.pdx.edu
-portlandpulse.org