[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting

[Michael Terner]

Steven:
Thanks for generating and distributing the summary. It is very helpful to
see everything lined up in one place. As per your request I would like to
offer the following clarification/observations to some of your data:

   - *Code Sprint:* As per our proposal and subsequent Q&A response, we
   have identified the code sprint as a "co-located" event that we would
   potentially hold during the workshop days (8/14-8/15). We would like to
   have a co-located code sprint and will work energetically with community
   organizers of the event to find the right time and place.
   - *Venue Max Capacity:* Our venue could potentially exceed 1,200, if
   needed. It would take some additional planning but we are considering
   attracting 1200 people an excellent goal, and it would be a "good problem"
   and feasible to be stretched a bit beyond that.
   - *Venue Condition: *As per earlier Q&A, the 810 room block is what has
   been offered. Specific conditions and any potential penalties are subject
   to negotiation if we are awarded the conference. The current proposal we
   have from the hotel does *not* mention any penalties, only that this is
   the maximum block of rooms that is being held for the conference.
   - *Distribution to OSGeo:* Yes, Boston has committed *at least *80% of
   net revenues to OSGeo (with the balance being used to establish/endow a
   Boston Chapter of OSGeo). We also capped the amount of that endowment to
   $20,000 so if we were to net our estimated profit of $145,000, OSGeo would
   receive $125,000, or 86.2%. We would respectfully suggest that your table
   also include the "net distribution" to OSGeo, not just the % as that may be
   misleading. Per the Philadelphia proposal's 1000 attendee number, even
   providing 90%, the total net return to OSGeo is $75,000, compared to
   Boston's $125,000 at the same attendance level. Even at an attendance of
   850, Boston would still provide $73,900 to OSGeo. At 700 people, Boston
   would provide $31,860 to OSGeo, while Philadelphia estimates they would
   break even - i.e., no return to OSGeo - at 785 attendees (per the Q&A).
   Boston's net numbers also compare favorably to Ottawa's when looked at not
   only by %, but by the net, estimated contribution to OSGeo, although Ottawa
   anticipates holding a smaller conference in terms of attendees. In short,
   the budgetary comparison in the table is not "apples-to-apples" and we
   encourage the selection committee to closely review the nuanced differences
   in the "distribution to OSGeo" approaches and estimated outcomes.

Thanks again for preparing this very helpful summary table and encouraging
our comments/fact checking.

MT



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought it might be helpful to prepare a short summary of the bids
> (primarily financial).
>
> Bidders let me know if I have misinterpreted or have errors
>
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>



-- 
*Michael Terner*
*Executive Vice President*
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
www.AppGeo.com

-- 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally 
privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise 
authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, 
disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this 
e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material 
in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete 
this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20151105/10f21fd9/attachment.html>