[OSGeo-Conf] Any other questions for the Washington, DC LOC?

[Andrew Ross]

Hi Cameron,

Eddie was on the road so called me to ask me to help address your 
question. And thanks for taking the time to speak with me to clear up 
the confusion here.

Quoting myself:
"Some numbers from the budget approved for our bid:
For 900 attendees, a payment of*$50K*to OSGeo leaves*$16.6K.*
For 1K attendees, a payment of*$75K*to OSGeo  leaves*$11K*."

As per my other email referencing OSGeo's budget over the years, you can 
see these payments to OSGeo compare very favorably with past payments 
OSGeo has received from FOSS4G.

You may have been looking at the profit without contingency. It would be 
a misleading to quote that as profit and a mistake to spend it at this 
point. It is far too early.

I also mentioned earlier in the thread:
"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."

The committee will be deciding between things like lowering 
registration, enhancing elements like the reception(s) or code sprint, 
payment to OSGeo, and deciding on the various things that inevitably 
crop up. Our committee includes people who have been involved with past 
FOSS4G's, past successful conferences, many have long been strong 
supporters of OSGeo, and Mark Lucas is a current board member.

I hope this helps clear this up and settles this concern?

Kind regards,

Andrew

On 08/07/13 17:23, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> On 08/07/13 12:48, Eddie Pickle wrote:
>> Speaking on behalf of the Washington, DC LOC, I believe we've 
>> answered all of the questions regarding our bid for FOSS4G 2014. 
>> Please let me know if there are other questions we can still address. 
>
> Eddie,
> I'm still waiting on a response to questions from me and Jeroen about 
> percentage of profit shared between OSGeo and Eclipse. As it stands, I 
> understand that the Washington proposal is still requesting ~ 50% of 
> expected profit to be provided to the Eclipse Foundation. As an OSGeo 
> board member I'm not comfortable with this split.
>
> If the Washington proposal is not wishing to move from this split, I'd 
> wish to raise the issue with the OSGeo board before going to final vote.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130708/d156bc94/attachment.html>