[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

Mon Jul 8 14:35:06 PDT 2013

All,

As an optional consideration, I would suggest keeping some sort of capped amount on hand as a transitioning sum of dollars, before moving towards the reduction in registration costs.  This makes good business sense over the long run, and the board can re-evaluate better in the future based on expected returns with a buffer of monies in the bank to work with for each new conference build-out.

In order to reduce risk (for all), it seems prudent to contribute to a (annual only??) conference fund, that could cover unexpected over-runs from proposals into the future.

Bobb

From: conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Steven Feldman
Cc: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2014 Budget Sharing

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<mailto: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/20130708/24ace6d2/attachment-0001.html>