[OSGeo-Conf] Request

till.adams at fossgis.de till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Aug 18 23:37:46 PDT 2015 

Hi Cameron,

thanks for jumping into the theme ;-)

What you expect could be done easily on the one hand, although final 
costs are not totally fixed yet - I think we roughly might hit them by 
80-90% for our early stage now. I just would have to sum up the big cost 
factors such as conference center, caterer, PCO, ship for gala dinner, 
that are the big four I guess. Take this amount plus let's say 20% would 
give a quiet good overview about the full expected costs. But from then 
on, there are at least two scenarios:

1. What are our losses at what date before the conference if we do a 
full cancellation - which means no income (if we'd have to pay back e.g. 
the full sponsoring packages as well...)?
2. What are our losses, if just less attendees appear than our break 
even (around 600) tells us we need, but we are going run the conference 
anyway? That one is much more complicated, as we only might see, how 
many people really appear very short before the conference. Taking both 
together, we might come to a scenario, where running the conference, 
although we know, we will loose money, is better than cancellation (just 
from the financial point of view) - but who in the end decides that?
Anyway.

I've done a rough estimation about our pre-payments for Jeff month ago. 
I think best way is, when I talk to the "main cost factors" and ask them 
what their rates are, if we sign a contract and then cancel e.g. 6 
month, 3 month and 1 month before (I am sure, that at least WCCB already 
passed this to me in the conditions). From that I can do a conservative 
estimation at what time(s) we will face maximum exposure with an 
uncertainity factor of some percents.
Is it that, what you expect?

I am sure, this is just an "if" discussion and will never get true ;-)

Regards, Till



Am 2015-08-19 02:28, schrieb Cameron Shorter:
> Hi Till,
> To answer your question, could you please provide details about
> maximum financial exposure your conference will face (and at what
> time(s) you will face maximum exposure). Ie, if a world pandemic
> breaks out, or if there is a global financial crisis, or similar, and
> you don't have expected (or any) attendees, what will be the amount
> lost if you need to pull the conference?
>
> The collective exposure of all FOSS4G conferences being guaranteed by
> OSGeo should be less than OSGeo's budget set aside for such exposure,
> at any point in time.
>
> On 18/08/2015 5:29 pm, till.adams at fossgis.de wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>>>> votedzwar
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list