[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Mon Jul 8 10:32:21 PDT 2013

Steve,

I like your idea of " giving FOSS4G delegates additional value at the
conference"! I have  been thinking of something along the same lines,
but it hasn't gotten fully formulated yet...

I was toying with the idea [1] of proposing that if profits in excess
of some amount, say $120K, rebates would go back to attendees. The
hard part is figuring out how much to rebate, I think.

What mechanism were you thinking of for " giving FOSS4G delegates
additional value at the conference"?
Cheers,
Percy

[1] I haven't talked to the rest of our Portland LOC about this, just
throwing it out for discussion

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to comment on what "should" happen with regard to the current
> bids but I thought it might help to provide some transparency about what
> "will" happen with this year's FOSS4G conference
>
> We published our budget in our proposal and in that we committed to a
> minimum $23-63k contribution to OSGeo based upon a cautious forecast of
> attendance levels. I have re-uploaded our proposal to
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2wShPAd7pU4R2tYNWlqWS1hUFk/edit?usp=sharing
> because the old site is no longer live.
>
> We are paying our event organising partner, the Association for Geographic
> Information, a very low 5% fee. Given fees quoted elsewhere I think we may
> be under rewarding them.
>
> We asked in our proposal for a share of the profit from the event to be
> allocated to the local FOSS4G chapter but did not stipulate an amount
>
> "Subject to exchange rates, total sponsorship income, and additional clarity
> on some costs closer to the event, we hope to achieve a contribution to
> OSGeo of approximately $30,000. However should we find during the run up to
> conference that a larger surplus is likely, we will aim to share these
> additional financial benefits with OSGeo, the OSGeo UK Chapter, and/or by
> giving FOSS4G delegates additional value at the conference."
>
> Today, thanks to fantastic sponsorship from all of these guys
> http://2013.foss4g.org/sponsors/ and very encouraging bookings we should be
> expecting a much larger surplus (I am not going to speculate in public as to
> the level). Our costs in general are likely to be a little lower than
> forecast.
>
> We will be offering sponsor exhibition booths to OSGeo and to AGI
>
> We thought we would need seed funding from OSGeo but in practice our first
> sponsors paid us before we had any outgoings so we have been completely self
> funded (although in theory OSGeo are on the hook if we made a loss - not
> going to happen). We have insured against all the usual risks (except
> delegates not booking) for ca. $3000
>
> I hope that helps
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2013, at 23:13, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/07/13 04:55, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> With the exception of South Africa, in which a joint agreement was
> arranged ahead to time to share with GISSA, all the other "OSGeo era"
> (2007+) FOSS4G events have returned all profits to OSGeo. The profit
> "targets" in the RFP are to make explicit that we don't necessarily
> want to-the-bone break-even budgets, we want budgets that will, under
> reasonable assumptions, return revenue to the organization. They are
> not the maximum or average profit we want, they are the minimum
> planning threshold. The organization still expects to receive the full
> profits of the event, RFP numbers notwithstanding.
>
> Though a familiar industry group (GITA) helped organize FOSS4G 2011,
> they did so as a standard conference organizing organization: their
> fee structure was known ahead of time and was in the budget from the
> start. That they also knew our industry as well as event organizing
> was a handy bonus, but not germane to the financial arrangements.
>
> I would expect that if the Eclipse foundation is looking for a profit
> sharing arrangement like GISSA, it should be included in the proposal
> with some precision (X%), and if they are going to act, like GITA, as
> an organizer, their fee schedule should be in the budget.
>
> P.
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> Thanks Paul, that is great background. So bridging between Paul's background
> and Eclipse's involvement in the Washington proposal.
>
> 1. Eclipse is acting as a PCO, and have factored staff costs into the budget
> (as GITA). Fee for service. All good, but no justification for profit
> sharing.
>
> 2. Eclipse is offering a depth of experience with Open Source conferences,
> including attracting sponsors. Profit sharing could be a form of payment in
> this regard, but I would expect an offset reduction in fixed price labour
> costs.
>
> 3. Of note, FOSS4G will offer significant marketing value to the Eclipse
> Foundation. I assume the Eclipse Foundation intending to include logos in
> the program, have a presentation, have signage at the event? What would that
> equate to as a sponsor of the event?
>
> 4. The Eclipse Foundation is offering OSGeo insurance against loss at the
> FOSS4G event, where key risk items are loss of key personnel, poor
> management, low attendance, and low sponsorship.
> * Loss of key personnel, and risk of poor management has been mitigated in
> both proposals through the identification of strong teams.
> * Risk of low attendance under normal circumstances is relatively low, as we
> already know the US region can attract ~ 900 delegates.
> * Risk of low attendance due to unforeseen events (such as the GFC, or 9/11)
> is unlikely but can have a large impact. Is insurance being taken out for
> these sort of eventualities?
> * Risk  of low sponsorship is a definite possibility, mitigated by Eclipse's
> experience attracting such sponsorship in the past.
>
> What is the risk mitigation worth? I'd love to see metrics for the items
> above applied to justify a percentage.
> My gut feeling is it is worth 10% of the profit. I'd entertain 20% of the
> profit. I feel that 50% of the profit is ripping OSGeo off.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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