[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Sat Jul 6 10:17:45 PDT 2013

I think the distinction between a "regional" event and the international event is getting blurred
______
Steven

On 6 Jul 2013, at 18:04, David Percy <percyd at pdx.edu> wrote:

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130706/412ab036/attachment-0001.html>