[OSGeo-Conf] Conference_dev Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18
David Percy
percyd at pdx.edu
Mon Jul 8 14:50:51 PDT 2013
Steve, thanks!
And that's great news about sponsorship by Digital Globe!
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Steve Swazee <sdswazee at sharedgeo.org> wrote:
> 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
> **********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list