[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting
Michael Terner
mgt at appgeo.com
Fri Nov 6 14:16:10 PST 2015
Steven:
Thanks for revising spreadsheet based on the input you've received. Just to
address the points that Robert and David have raised vis a vis our workshop
pricing and the PCO and associated costs.
1. YES, our workshop costs are $100/day. We believe it is important to give
attendees the option of having the right number of workshops that fits
their schedule (i.e., Monday *and *Tuesday; Tuesday only). That is why our
workshop pricing is itemized. That said, it is a good idea to have a
bundled and discounted workshop price along with the main conference and we
will strongly consider that if we are chosen.
2. YES, we did not include an original, itemized line item for our PCO and
our PCO was embedded in the $149K "Production" line item. Based on a
question, we presented the $60K PCO price separately. Our $60K PCO
price is *all
inclusive *and like Philadelphia includes marketing support and other labor
activities. We did our research and this pricing is comfortably consistent
with successful previous global North American events. And, as shown
throughout the proposal process, our full BLOC is prepared to be
energetically involved in producing the conference.
Boston's PCO approach is different than both Philadelphia's and Ottawa's.
We were approached by Location Tech, heard their pitch, and selected a PCO
partner that did not require branding and who we felt would best reflect
the BLOC's vision for the conference. We consciously gave up the
underwriting that Location Tech generously offered and instead chose the
formula that has worked for previous FOSS4G global conferences with OSGeo
and the LOC directly partnering and sharing risks and rewards. And very
importantly, we wanted some of the rewards (i.e., the 20%, or $20k of
profits, whichever is smaller) to be reinvested in further building the
Boston community through a new OSGeo Chapter.
3. While the spreadsheet is incredibly helpful and I presume will be very
valuable to the selection committee there is agreement across all three
teams that it does not reflect a pure apples-to-apples comparison. Some
significant things differ including:
- The anticipated attendance in each city
- The PCO approach and underwriting
- The allocation approach for profits
This is fine and appropriate as the proposals do reflect a variety of
legitimate approaches. It just means the numbers in the spreadsheet need to
be reviewed with an eye to some of the fundamental choices the committee
faces, not just the numbers in the grid.
Thanks again for pulling the material together and giving us an
opportunity to better explain our proposals. And best of luck in your
deliberations and voting.
MT & the BLOC
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com>
wrote:
> Steven,
>
> Some additions from Ottawa:
>
> Room Rates - Because we are not tied into a particular hotel, and the
> event is right downtown - attendees would have flexibility on where to
> stay. Ottawa rates at the high end for that time of year would be about
> $175 per night, with many reasonable options available in the $100-$150
> range.
>
> I’d echo the apples-to-apples comparison issue regarding line items for
> PCO / Production costs — they are bundled for Philadelphia and Ottawa,
> de-coupled for Boston.
>
> Workshops - same as Philadelphia
>
> Maximum capacity is 2,000+
> Concurrent tracks = 10
> Wifi = free
> Venue conditions - none
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Robert Cheetham <cheetham at azavea.com> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for pulling together a summary table. A few suggestions and some
> additional info for Philadelphia:
>
> * Maximum capacity: 2000+
> * Concurrent tracks supported: 10
> * free wifi: yes
>
> Some additional suggestions:
>
> * Add a row for hotel rates - affordability was a significant concern in
> the pre-proposal questions. Philadelphia's rate is $209
>
> * "Workshops" should be "Workshops Only" and "Workshops Only EB" as the
> actual workshop price will likely be only $100/half day ($200 total) for
> anyone that attends the full conference. It's not clear from the Boston
> proposal, but I think $100 workshop fee is a per half day number added to
> the regular conference price, which suggests it should be listed as $200
> added to the conference fee in the "Conf + Workshop" and "Conf + Workshop
> EB" lines, rather than $100 in the "Workshop Only" line, but perhaps
> Michael Terner can clarify.
>
> * In order to support an apples-to-apples comparison, the "PCO" line
> should probably be re-labeled "Production" or "Operations" with a line each
> for PCO fee and "Other Production Costs". The Eclipse Foundation included
> marketing efforts and other labor activities in the PCO fee, and it's not
> clear to me how best to compare this fee between the three bids, but the
> the Philadelphia and Ottawa proposals broke out the PCO fee from other
> operations and production costs while the Boston bid included the PCO in a
> $149k production costs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
>
> ------------------
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Michael
>>
>> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions. I have updated the
>> comparison.
>>
>> Any other changes?
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On 6 Nov 2015, at 03:53, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <http://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).
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 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/20151106/16f5751d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list