[OSGeo-Conf] Conference_dev Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18
Steve Swazee
sdswazee at sharedgeo.org
Sat Jul 6 10:39:21 PDT 2013
All,
To help put things in perspective - Here are some numbers I am aware of.
FOSS4G - Denver, 2011: For handling all aspects of Denver, GITA was under a
flat-fee contract of $65,000. As I understand circumstances, funds sent to
OSGeo from the event were approximately $120,000.
FOSS4G-NA Minneapolis, 2013: For serving as the event legal entity
responsible for fiscal management, contracting, personnel fills as requested
by the LOC, SharedGeo was paid 3% of gross (apx $5,700). Projected OSGeo
profit is approximately $52,000 (I defer to David for final numbers).
To the short of the matter - Event insurance can be bought for reasonable
amounts to cover developments which would preclude the event from taking
place - a tornado hits the Convention Center. Insurance cannot be bought to
cover poor turnout. That is the issue of exposure. Given the track record
of this event and growing interest (sans the Beijing debacle), in my opinion
the exposure to OSGeo on this last issue is nonexistent and red herring when
talking about how to cut up the pie. Far more important to the discussion
is, as profits rise, how to reduce the tax impact on the funds coming back
to OSGeo. That feature was built into the Minneapolis contract, but was not
utilized.
Both teams should also know that per SharedGeo discussions with Digital
Globe, they have already offered their interest in sponsoring in 2014.
Best Regards,
Steve Swazee
Executive Director
SharedGeo
-----Original Message-----
From: conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
conference_dev-request at lists.osgeo.org
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 8:16 AM
To: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Conference_dev Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18
Send Conference_dev mailing list submissions to
conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
conference_dev-request at lists.osgeo.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
conference_dev-owner at lists.osgeo.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Conference_dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: OSGeo branding at FOSS4G (Cameron Shorter)
2. Re: FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing (Andrew Ross)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 21:31:30 +1000
From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
To: Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
Cc: Brian Hamlin <maplabs at light42.com>, conference
<conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] OSGeo branding at FOSS4G
Message-ID: <51D80012.6060800 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Jeroen,
The FOSS4G Cookbook is probably the place to put this.
I've started a section:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Cookbook#OSGeo_Branding
On 06/07/13 16:33, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
> Hi all,
> This is an excellent point that is so easily forgotten! It seems so
obvious for "us OSGeo folks" that there is an OSGeo booth and there is
strong marketing / branding at the FOSS4G conferences. And still we've had a
couple of times where the LOC and OSGeo had different expectations.
>
> Is this point also described in proposal guidelines? If not we indeed
> should describe OSGeo minimum requirements towards proposal writers
>
> Jeroen
>
> Op 6 jul. 2013 om 05:06 heeft Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Portland and Washington teams,
>>
>> A concern was raised at the June OSGeo Board meeting [1] about the lack
of OSGeo branding at the FOSS4G-NA event, especially in comparison with
other brands visible at the event. (I think there was a public email thread
discussing this, but I can't find it).
>>
>> I have also heard a few private concerns (in relation to OSGeo-Live not
being visible at FOSS4G-NA, while it plays a prominent role in FOSS4G events
in other parts of the world).
>>
>> To address these concerns, I invite both Portland and Washington teams to
make a brief statement about OSGeo branding at FOSS4G 2014. Eg: Will there
be an OSGeo booth? Do you expect that the OSGeo-Live USB (or DVD) will be
handed out to all delegates as has been done at prior events?
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-06-13
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 09:15:33 -0400
From: Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org>
To: Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
Cc: "conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org" <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing
Message-ID: <51D81875.5030202 at eclipse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
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
> <mailto: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 <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_Prioritie
>>>> s
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130706/23787d
a0/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
End of Conference_dev Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18
**********************************************
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list