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

till.adams at fossgis.de till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Aug 18 00:29:27 PDT 2015 

Arnulf, @Conference-committee,

thanks to put my thoughts in better words ;-).

So, I agree to change my question into a proper request to the OSGeo 
Conference Committee (by copying Arnulfs words):


> 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
Till

> for the FOSS4G Bonn LOC
>
>


Former Email-History here:

>
>
> 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
>>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list