[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting
cheetham at azavea.com
Sun Nov 8 18:08:30 PST 2015
I can't speak for Ottawa, but because Philadelphia has a similar agreement
with the PCO, I can respond from my own perspective.
I think if we start to include in-kind contributions as cash contributions,
then the offer of OSGeo booth space and headline branding would also be
considered as a cash contribution to OSGeo. But that seems silly to me.
It's important that OSGeo have this promotion and branding and considering
it as part of the financial support to OSGeo isn't helpful or constructive.
I think there are a number of situations in which in-kind space or sponsor
status will likely be in the best interest of a successful event (for
example for media sponsorships, food/drink donations, etc), but I think it
would be most helpful at this junction to focus on the actual cash budget
and not on the hypothetical in-kind value of sponsorship arrangements.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Guido Stein <guido at guidostein.com> wrote:
> I have questions based on your LT visibility plan:
> What we have proposed for LocationTech visibility is as follows:
> 1. Recognition as a Sponsor for Conference Organization.
> 2. Booth at the Exhibition Hall
> 3. Acknowledgement of LocationTech’s PCO services at plenaries, similar to
> how GITA in Denver, and AGI in Nottingham were recognized.
> The above we feel is in line with their offer to financially backstop the
> Sponsorship and booth space are a major source of revenue for the
> conference. The value of sponsoring this conference is currently set
> between 3,000 and 30,000 thousand euro's.
> In your proposal your cost for your PCO, was stated as 90,000 USD. One of
> the services that your PCO, LocationTech, offers is to give you a "financial
> backstop". So, since sponsorship/visibility is valued between 3,000 to
> 30,000 euros, is that cost of sponsorship built into the cost of your PCO,
> meaning the complete cost for the PCO is between 93,000-120,000 USD with
> the cost of sponsorship paid in-kind, or does LocationTech plan to pay
> their sponsorship dues, or does locationtech get free sponsorship and get
> paid 90,000 USD?
> Thanks for your clarification on this,
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
>> Clear to me
>> On 8 Nov 2015, at 15:25, Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com> wrote:
>> Hi Steven and Jeff,
>> I do realize that the relationship with LocationTech as PCO is a bit of a
>> departure from previous events, and as such I want to be sure we are very
>> clear on how this will translate in the areas of concern that have been
>> *1. Branding*
>> The event will be banded as "FOSS4G 2017 Ottawa, Hosted by OSGeo”, in
>> line with all previous OSGeo annual FOSS4G events. To be clear this will
>> not be the same as FOSS4G-NA which is run differently.
>> What we have proposed for LocationTech visibility is as follows:
>> 1. Recognition as a Sponsor for Conference Organization.
>> 2. Booth at the Exhibition Hall
>> 3. Acknowledgement of LocationTech’s PCO services at plenaries, similar
>> to how GITA in Denver, and AGI in Nottingham were recognized.
>> The above we feel is in line with their offer to financially backstop the
>> *2. Finances*
>> We are committing to a significant payment as outlined in our proposal
>> should the conference run a surplus. Specific amounts are specified based
>> on sample surplus thresholds met. And OSGeo does not carry any financial
>> risk if the event fails to make money.
>> I believe we’ve outlined each of the fee areas in the proposal, but if
>> there are any specific questions about line items, please let me know so we
>> can clarify.
>> *3. Coincidental Text between Philadelphia and Ottawa*
>> The reason for the similar text in our proposals is a result of both
>> organizations choosing to work with a PCO who is highly knowledgeable about
>> open source events, and open source geospatial events in particular. We
>> relied on them to help us in venue selection, sponsorship program, and many
>> other areas they have intimate knowledge about, particularly with recent
>> experiences with FOSS4G-NA. Neither LOC was about to re-write just so they
>> could look different. They simply made sense and were based on better
>> knowledge than the LOCs themselves had.
>> Does that clarify things, is there anything in the above that remains
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conference_dev