[OSGeo-Conf] liability

[Jeff McKenna]

I like the bar analogy from Eli.

I know many people around the world worked very hard to create that bar, 
to build it, to allow those to walk in recently, order a beer (easily as 
you said), and give them the stage with a spotlight.

So let's just keep positive, and make the Seoul event the "bigbang" of 
the year, and then continue the bang in Bonn, and then wherever in 2017. 
  (this is exactly my mindset, and, i personally do everything i can 
behind the scenes with Sanghee and Till, to help make this happen).


-jeff




On 2015-06-18 3:46 PM, 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.
>>
>>