[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Mon Jul 8 14:27:05 PDT 2013

Thank you Steven,
This is valuable information about FOSS4G 2013, which helps frame 
expectations for FOSS4G 2014, and also a FOSS4G Cookbook.

While our FOSS4G proposal guideline stipulates an expectation that $30K 
should be made under conservative estimates, we have not explained 
expectations if a greater profit is obtained.

I think we have reached a stage where US and EU global FOSS4G 
conferences are likely to earn $100K or more under likely scenarios (if 
estimating $30K for conservative scenarios).
I believe the expectation should be that OSGeo should retain ~ $100K 
(probably calculated as a percentage of profit). Giving back to 
delegates (in value, rather than a refund) is a valuable option. 
Re-investing in the LOC is worth considering, but I'm wary as to how to 
word that into Cookbook guidelines.

Note: My comments here are relating to future FOSS4G events. I'm not 
suggesting retrospectively applying guidelines upon previous events.

On 09/07/13 02:38, Steven Feldman 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 
> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>

-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130709/ae0287f0/attachment.html>