[OSGeo-Conf] liability

Mon Aug 17 04:29:32 PDT 2015

Just a FYI that in the latest board meeting, logs here: http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2015-08-13.log <http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/#osgeo.2015-08-13.log> there was some more discussion about the liability.

Best regards,
Bart

> On 01 Jul 2015, at 04:54, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry to return to this again:
>>> 
>>> "OSGeo will take on financial responsibility, including bridge funding and
>>> absorbing shortfalls, should attendance fall short of conservative budgeted
>>> estimates (to be agreed on early in the planning process)” or similar
>>> statements sound fine but they have no precise meaning unless they are
>>> underpinned by a contractual relationship between OSGeo and the LOC. In
>>> some, if not most, cases the LOC itself has no legal status and so a
>>> contract could require individuals to enter into that relationship. This
>> 
>> Yes, there is a contract each year.  My understanding is that the
>> contract leaves all or most of the risk on OSGeo.  (Maybe we should
>> find the contract and read it? Or ask the Board to have a legal review
>> and advice.)
>> 
>>> also implies that someone from OSGeo (either a board or a conference
>>> committee member) will have some oversight of the conference planning and
>>> finances. A professional conference organiser might solve these concerns.
>> 
>> Implying things in contracts isn't a sign of a good lawyer.  If the
>> contract doesn't specify Board or other OSGeo representative oversight
>> over conference planning and finances than it isn't in the contract.
>> This might not be a good idea but to be otherwise, the contract would
>> need to specify.  I prefer the LOCs to have wide latitude and think
>> that much more oversight than the existing loose oversight would be
>> detrimental.
> 
> The RFP has some language about OSGeo Board oversight on finances:
> 
> Establishing the Local Organizing Committee
> Following the committee's decision, there is a process of establishing
> a local organizing committee (LOC) which will include both local
> organizers and representatives of OSGeo. The LOC will be expected to
> operate within a budget framework to be approved by the OSGeo board.
> 
> Eli
> 
>> 
>> Yes, OSGeo employing a professional conference organizer might solve
>> these and other concerns.  Looking back at 2007 is interesting,
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G2007_Governance.  Apparently,
>> previously there was more formal OSGeo oversight.
>> 
>>> 
>>> So far it has all worked out fine, the LOCs have delivered and OSGeo has
>>> benefited from all or part of the surpluses generated. My hunch, it will go
>>> wrong sometime and then there could/will be recriminations.
>> 
>> 2012 didn't work out and it seemed things continued in the same
>> manner.  Part of the pressure on you/Nottingham was to put a good (and
>> successful) face on FOSS4G.  You did it very well too!
>> 
>> I think that if we don't go with employing some PCO with continuity
>> from year to year, then we have to be comfortable taking this risk on
>> community members who we know.  FOSS4G basically works on trust.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I think we need to encourage the creativity of the LOCs without burdening
>>> them with too much financial responsibility. If we are going to underwrite
>>> FOSS4G events we need to have a  closer relationship with the LOC and some
>>> control over the purse strings. There is always risk around events (actually
>>> on both sides) but we can manage it better if we have a clearer
>>> understanding of risk and responsibility.
>> 
>> Agree.  Or mostly agree (I think that purse string control would
>> hinder the LOC too much, imagine if it took you two weeks to have all
>> your decisions over 10k approved.  How many big decisions did you have
>> to make on a very tight timeline?)
>> 
>> Right now, I've copied the old text into the new 2017 RFP.  Do you
>> have a proposal for different text?  Should we ask the Board to take
>> some action before the 2018 RFP?  If you have something that you think
>> would work I would probably be game for supporting that change.
>> 
>> Eli
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 24 Jun 2015, at 06:33, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The OSGeo Board guaranteed most earlier global foss4g events (with the
>>> exception of the failed Beijing event). Luckily all the sponsored events
>>> have been profitable.
>>> 
>>> The board addressed this topic or guarantees a few years back, and collated
>>> into:
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Conferences_and_related_events
>>> referenced from: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Guarantees
>>> 
>>> Conferences are financially risky events. They need to be planned well in
>>> advance, and you are never sure how many people will turn up, or whether
>>> some global event will have a substantial impact on registrations.
>>> Consequently, conferences such as FOSS4G require financial guarantees up
>>> front in order to secure a venue. To support and enable these conferences,
>>> OSGeo will endevour to retain sufficient capital to offer such guarantees
>>> for any FOSS4G event requesting it. If OSGeo's support is requested, then
>>> OSGeo would expect these events to budget for a modest profit under
>>> conservative estimates, and for OSGeo to retain profits from such events. To
>>> date, such profits, while relatively modest, have been OSGeo's primary
>>> income source.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The 2015 RFP
>>> (http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2015/osgeo-conference-2015-request-for-proposal.odt)
>>> said,
>>> 
>>> "Support by OSGeo
>>> 
>>> Generally speaking it is anticipated that the conference effort will
>>> be split into a local organizing committee responsible for all work on
>>> venues, and the OSGeo Conference committee. Traditionally the local
>>> conference committee did almost all the work, with the international
>>> steering committee providing external advice, and some support.
>>> Ultimately the success of the event depends on a strong local
>>> conference committee that can pull everything together.
>>> 
>>> OSGeo will take on financial responsibility, including bridge funding
>>> and absorbing shortfalls, should attendance fall short of conservative
>>> budgeted estimates (to be agreed on early in the planning process)."
>>> 
>>> To me, the above is abundantly clear.
>>> 
>>> As to Conference Committee Policy, it is not policy unless it is voted
>>> on and passed by the committee, people voicing their opinions doesn't
>>> make it the Conference Committee Policy.
>>> 
>>> Conference Committee: should we pass a motion to the effect:
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>> "The OSGeo Conference Committee recommends that the OSGeo Board
>>> affirms the RFP statement for 2015 and subsequent years:
>>> 
>>> 'Support by OSGeo
>>> 
>>> Generally speaking it is anticipated that the conference effort will
>>> be split into a local organizing committee responsible for all work on
>>> venues, and the OSGeo Conference committee. Traditionally the local
>>> conference committee did almost all the work, with the international
>>> steering committee providing external advice, and some support.
>>> Ultimately the success of the event depends on a strong local
>>> conference committee that can pull everything together.
>>> 
>>> OSGeo will take on financial responsibility, including bridge funding
>>> and absorbing shortfalls, should attendance fall short of conservative
>>> budgeted estimates (to be agreed on early in the planning process).'
>>> 
>>> as well as the previously existing Board Policy,
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Conferences_and_related_events
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>> To me this is somewhat unnecessary and already the case and no one has
>>> provided actual evidence that this is not already the case.  However,
>>> if there is confusion, we can pass a motion asking the Board to affirm
>>> this as correct which should at least end the confusion.
>>> 
>>> Best regards, Eli
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 19/06/2015 4:46 am, Eli Adam wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If OSGeo is getting the benefits of any proceeds, they need to be assuming
>>> the liability as well.
>>> 
>>> I agree with this.  I'd have to reread contracts (or get a lawyer's
>>> opinion) but I think most of the liability is already largely on
>>> OSGeo.
>>> 
>>> This was the case for Portland, and was part of the contract signed with the
>>> VTM Group (the POC) and OSGeo.
>>> 
>>> Agree.
>>> 
>>> The LoC *couldn’t* accept any liability, because the LoC was not a legal
>>> entity, and to ask the LoC members to accept personal liability is obviously
>>> ridiculous.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So far OSGeo’s FOSS4G operating model is essentially this:
>>> 
>>> 1) "Anyone want to run a conference for us?"
>>> 2) Choose one of the people who offer to do it and delegate
>>> 3) Give them a pile of money
>>> 4) Hope for the best
>>> 5) Profit(?)
>>> 
>>> If Darrell and I are in the bar, I'm prone to handing him my wallet,
>>> saying "here's 40k, see you in a year with 100k", then I slap him on
>>> the back and say "good luck!"  His reactions range from a mild glare,
>>> a gentle laugh, and occasionally a frothing at the mouth rant.  This
>>> model although very stressful for the LOC and chair, generally appears
>>> to work.
>>> 
>>> If (5) instead becomes “Lose money” that’s on OSGeo, and that’s as it should
>>> be, because if (5) is “Profit” it gets all the rewards, too.
>>> 
>>> But more seriously, yes (5) is/should not be "Profit(?)" but "Profit
>>> or loss".  As I said before, I'm not convinced that this is not
>>> already the case.  We can certainly clarify this in the RFP which will
>>> go out soon for 2017.  Feel free to join in on the RFP process
>>> details,
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2015-May/003012.html
>>> 
>>> Eli
>>> 
>>> If Gaia3d (presumably) is accepting any direct financial or legal liability
>>> for FOSS4G 2015 that is a *major* problem in my mind.
>>> 
>>> d.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>> LISAsoft
>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>> 
>>> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20150817/e3402d48/attachment-0001.html>