[OSGeo-Conf] liability

[Eli Adam]

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.

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
>
>