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

[Cameron Shorter]

Thanks Andrew for answering my questions over skype a few hours ago, and 
also for summarising our discussion here.

My previous concerns were based upon my (incorrect) assumption that 
contingency should be considered as part of the profit. Based upon your 
summary below, I'm much more comfortable with the Washington budget as 
it stands.

On 9/07/2013 8:50 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> 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.
>>
>


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Software and Data Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial & Data 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/d00ee39b/attachment.html>