[OSGeo-Conf] Request (was: Re: liability)

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

Till,
I suggest to change this question into a proper request to the OSGeo
Conference Committee (instead of opening up the floor for more blah).



Dear Conference Committee,
the Bonn LOC in charge of organizing FOSS4G 2016 requests OSGeo to act
as financial safeguard for FOSS4G 2016. OSGeo agrees to cover potential
losses that could arise from a failure of FOSS4G 2016 (be it natural
disaster, economic crisis, lower attendance than expected, etc.). In
turn OSGeo will receive the surplus generated through the conference.


Note:
In my understanding this request should be discussed on the conference
list. Once a consensus has been reached by the conference committee the
outcome should be presented to the board as a motion. Last decision lies
with the board.


Note to the board:
In my understanding the whole issue is pretty simple. OSGeo's current
uncommitted financial resources totally allow safeguarding FOSS4G
without exposing the foundation to any risk at all. In return a
successful FOSS4G is easily earned money. Err: Made money. Plus it
serves the purpose of the foundation. Wow.

If OSGeo refuses to act as financial safeguard the surplus will also go
somewhere else.


Looking back in history we were pretty careless/reckless (individuals
signing and becoming personally fully liable). But as we mature we
become less audacious and this also involves financial "security" (and
may also be somewhat more boring...).

:-)


Best regards,
Arnulf
(for the FOSS4G Bonn LOC)





On 17.08.2015 14:48, till.adams at fossgis.de wrote:
> Hi conference list,
> 
> again that liability-issue, although I know, that you are in work with
> the new LofI for now. Bart today pointed on the IRC-log of the last
> board meeting (http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2015-08-13.log,
> see also his email below-below-below) and I want to come back on this
> issue. I wrote an email to Jeff, because I was a little bit surprised,
> that some board members seem to have a different opinion of taking over
> financial liability than I had in mind after the last discussion about
> the issue on this list. And also in contrary on what is written down
> here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Guarantees (thanks
> again to Cameron for pointing on that).
> 
> Jeff pleased me to go back to here pointing out, that the liability
> issue is always a unique agreement for each FOSS4G each year, as each
> year there is a new PCO with its own demands...
> 
> What I really want to clear up for now, is whether OSGeo overtakes full
> liability or to what extent especially for our FOSS4G 2016. For now, we
> did not plan our PCO to overtake any liability - on the other side,
> there are no extra-costs for that of course. We tried to keep costs for
> PCO as low as possible up to now. I am also not sure whether there is
> kind of insurance for this, but of course this would also cause new
> costs, I'd like to avoid and prefer to keep the money inside the community.
> For FOSSGIS-conferences we as FOSSGIS e.V. overtake the full liability,
> but we can't do this for FOSS4G-dimensions. For FOSSGIS we roughly have
> a budget which is about 10% of what we expect for FOSS4G...
> This is not, because I really expect this case, but you never know, what
> volcanoes like Vatnajökull are planning in August 2016...
> 
> 
> This is what I wrote to Jeff (and below his answer):
> 
> "Hi Jeff,
> 
> Bart pointed me to the board discussion about the liability of OSGeo
> regarding FOSS4G conferences last week. As you know, there was a recent
> discussion about this on the Conference-List as well and I guess
> everybody there had the opinion, that liability is in responsibility of
> OSGeo - as OSGeo (more or less) expects the full surplus. Reading the
> IRC-logs, it looks that the board has a different meaning here.
> 
> I really would like to have this issue cleared ASAP - as I was in
> perception, that OSGeo takes the full liability - as they get the full
> surplus. Also, I know, that FOSSGIS members who voted +1 for FOSS4G 2016
> did so. On that meeting, we had this discussion and Arnulf said at that
> time, that there is no risk for FOSSGIS at all....
> Although we have some money saved over the past years, we are far away
> from having enough money to overtake the risk for contracts in the
> amount of what we have to sign for WCCB, PCO, party-ship, the caterer
> and others. Yes, there are PCO's offering to overtake also the risk, but
> that means that a lot of (possible) surplus goes to them afterwards, and
> not to the community.
> Is this, what we really want?
> 
> In case OSGeo doens't take the full liability, we have at least to look
> for an insurance (or s.th. similar) - which of course will cause new
> costs...
> 
> Not only for us, the Bonn LOC this is a very important point, I think if
> OSGeo does not have a clear a position (and in my eyes this couldn't be
> different from overtaking full liability) this will for sure cause
> problems in finding LOC's willing to carry out FOSS4G-conferences in
> future at all ....
> 
> So far, Till "
> 
> 
> Jeff:
> 
> "Hi Till,
> 
> As you know, we discussed this in Como with Sanghee as well.  In fact I
> met with Sanghee to modify the agreement between OSGeo and the Seoul
> local committee in Como, as to the desires of Sanghee.
> 
> In short, the agreement for each FOSS4G is unique each year, as each
> year there is a new PCO with its own demands.
> 
> To tackle this head on now, please do bring this issue to the OSGeo
> Conference Committee list, there is a whole committee set up to deal
> with this.  As in terms of me meeting with Sanghee in Como, that would
> have been prevented if this was handled by the OSGeo Conference
> Committee earlier with Sanghee's team.
> 
> But for sure, if you need me to step in I will, as I always have.  But
> in this case, with a topic of "liability", let's let the whole OSGeo
> Conference Committee tackle it.
> 
> -jeff"
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards, Till
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 2015-08-17 13:29, schrieb Bart van den Eijnden:
>> Just a FYI that in the latest board meeting, logs here:
>> http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2015-08-13.log [9] 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 [6]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>>> [7]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman
>>>> <shfeldman at gmail.com [1]> 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 [5]. 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
>>>>
>>>> _
>>>>
>>>>> ="">
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 Jun 2015, at 06:33, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us [2]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com [3]> 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
>>
>>>>> [4]
>>>>> 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 [8]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com
>> [2] mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>> [3] mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>> [4]
>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Conferences_and_related_events
>>
>> [5] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G2007_Governance
>> [6] mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>> [7] mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>> [8] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> [9] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/#osgeo.2015-08-13.log
>