[OSGeo-Conf] liability

Tue Jun 30 19:54:08 PDT 2015

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> 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.

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.  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
>>
>>