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

Jeff McKenna jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Mon Nov 9 05:46:55 PST 2015

Hi Dave,

I've just had some nasty private messages sent to me now (not by you), 
threats, of "do you want LT to start their own event?  Imagine if 
companies went there" etc.  I'd like to answer those "threats" here.

I think we must be sure to keep the spirit of FOSS4G (and those people 
making the threats are missing the point).  Really, FOSS4G is for the 
OSGeo community to get together, a "meeting of the tribes".  I don't see 
a problem with LT starting their own event, would be great, and if big 
business went there that also would be good, for LT and their members. 
FOSS4G would continue to be hosted by OSGeo, rotated around the world 

I'd rather keep this dialogue public, with no private threats made. 
(but some are too cowardly to speak publicly).  I saw this in my past 
discussions with LT (where some OSGeo "leaders" chose not to publicly 
share their own opinions, but would privately disagree with LT influence).

So I appreciate that you are speaking with me here Dave.  I like your 
response, I think you dealt with my question well.

Talk soon,


On 2015-11-09 9:25 AM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> I really don’t feel that anything we proposed here suggests OSGeo is giving up branding at this event. The visibility items for LT are virtually the same as previous events as we’ve discussed here … a booth, some sponsor visibility similar to other organizations that sponsor the event, and a thank you for their organizational support. All of that is intentionally planned to be below the radar, in a similar vein to corporate or other organizational participation in this event so that OSGeo continues to have top prominence with this being the OSGeo event of the year.
> On top of this — you significantly increase the outreach to communities that may not be actively involved in OSGeo, and in fact may not know what OSGeo is. All of this enhances the OSGeo brand, it doesn’t diminish it.
> Dave
>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>> I have a problem with your proposed "LT visibility items are compensation for putting up seed funding, and financial insurance".  So we are to give up branding for our own event, one that we have driven from 2006 with blood, sweat, and tears (a lot of each of those), so that another foundation can provide seed funding and financial insurance? Why do you feel the need to not allow the OSGeo foundation to provide the seed funding and insurance for our own event?
>> To give a better financial picture of OSGeo, in fact the outlook for the foundation has been better: coming off of a successful FOSS4G-Seoul event, and as we approach another strong event of FOSS4G-Bonn.  I have already heard plans in motion from a strong group in the Asia-Pacific region for FOSS4G 2018.  We are running a steady balance in our financial accounts at a level higher than ever before in the history of the foundation: roughly 300k USD.
>> It seems like a hard pill to be forced to swallow, losing our precious OSGeo branding (that we always have a difficult time enforcing even at our one yearly event), for something that we don't even need (external seed funding and financial insurance).
>> -jeff
>> On 2015-11-08 9:44 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>>> HI Guido,
>>> Thank you for the good question.
>>> First of all I should point out that the $90,000 cost is an at-cost fee
>>> for provision of these services. Keep in mind they will be doing a lot
>>> of the open source geospatial leg work that is often handled by the LOC
>>> volunteers, such as sponsorship recruitment, marketing activities,
>>> program logistics support, etc...
>>> In addition, they have agreed to financially backstop the event, ie. put
>>> up any of the seed funds required to move this forward, and cover
>>> shortfalls in the worse case that this should take place.
>>> I think the best way to think of this is:
>>> 1. The 90,000 is to cover the internal labour costs for LT to provide
>>> these services, so that the organization will at least be cost-neutral
>>> in providing these PCO services
>>> 2. The LT visibility items are compensation for putting up seed funding,
>>> and financial insurance.
>>> Another way to think about it — it’s just a good way for two open source
>>> geospatial organizations to give each other a hand.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave
>>>> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Guido Stein <guido at guidostein.com
>>>> <mailto:guido at guidostein.com>> wrote:
>>>> Dave,
>>>> 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 event.
>>>> ----
>>>> 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,
>>>> Guido
>>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>     Clear to me
>>>>     ______
>>>>     Steven
>>>>>     On 8 Nov 2015, at 15:25, Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com
>>>>>     <mailto: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 raised.
>>>>>     *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 event.
>>>>>     *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 unclear?
>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>>     On Nov 7, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>>>     <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>>     You say “for the sake of clarity and transparency ...” I may be
>>>>>>     a lone voice here but I don’t fee that there is clarity or
>>>>>>     transparency about the relationship between the Ottawa and
>>>>>>     Philadelphia bids and Location Tech. Several questions and
>>>>>>     concerns have been expressed regarding branding, finances,
>>>>>>     influence, the coincidences of identical sections of text in
>>>>>>     both bids etc. From my personal perspective I do not have ‘clarity’
>>>>>>     ______
>>>>>>     Steven
>>>>>>>     On 7 Nov 2015, at 22:30, Dave McIlhagga
>>>>>>>     <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com <mailto:dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>     After reading Michael’s summary - I realized that there are
>>>>>>>     quite different perspectives on taking on the responsibility of
>>>>>>>     hosting FOSS4G for OSGeo, so for the sake of clarity and
>>>>>>>     transparency felt compelled to provide the perspective of the
>>>>>>>     Ottawa LOC on taking this on.
>>>>>>>     When some of our keen and active members of the Ottawa OSGeo
>>>>>>>     Local Chapter approached me about participating in this event,
>>>>>>>     a lot of great memories of hosting the precursor we did in 2004
>>>>>>>     came back to me, but so did the memories of the mountains of
>>>>>>>     work, unexpected twists and turns, and complete underestimation
>>>>>>>     we had of the job at hand. Over the years I’ve had
>>>>>>>     conversations with many of the hosts of this event, who even
>>>>>>>     with the assistance of an experienced PCO, and with all the
>>>>>>>     energy and best intentions in the world, have been overwhelmed
>>>>>>>     by the amount of work required, particularly due to some of the
>>>>>>>     unique needs that come with putting on an open source
>>>>>>>     geospatial event.
>>>>>>>     With this in mind, I joined our LOC, with an eye to advising
>>>>>>>     and supporting from my experience with this event. When the
>>>>>>>     group asked if I would be willing to Chair — I said I would,
>>>>>>>     but the condition of that was that we had to have a very strong
>>>>>>>     PCO to work with, as I was well aware of what the alternative
>>>>>>>     would look like in terms of impacts on our team, and our
>>>>>>>     ability to pull off a world class professional event.
>>>>>>>     At this point I approached LocationTech to see if they would be
>>>>>>>     interested in acting as our PCO in our bid to OSGeo to host
>>>>>>>     FOSS4G for the foundation. I had several reasons for this which
>>>>>>>     I will explain below - but before this, want to share the next
>>>>>>>     step of our process in selecting a PCO. In order to ensure due
>>>>>>>     diligence, we invited another prominent PCO from Ottawa to
>>>>>>>     offer their services so that we could compare options. The end
>>>>>>>     point of this was a three way discussion among the Ottawa PCO,
>>>>>>>     LocationTech and the Ottawa LOC. It was an interesting
>>>>>>>     experiment in collaborative discussion on this - and the result
>>>>>>>     was the other PCO we were speaking with suggested it really
>>>>>>>     made most sense for us to work with LocationTech on our bid.
>>>>>>>     That provided for me the reassurance that this was the right
>>>>>>>     way for us to approach this.
>>>>>>>     For us, the advantages of this approach come down to the following:
>>>>>>>     1. Eclipse has long experience and infrastructure specifically
>>>>>>>     designed for hosting international  open source events and all
>>>>>>>     the uniqueness that implies. No need to re-invent the wheel for
>>>>>>>     Technical Workshop sign-ups, incorporating BOFs, Sprints, and
>>>>>>>     the many other elements of this event.
>>>>>>>     2. I remember how much time Sponsorship recruitment took —
>>>>>>>     something typically grossly underestimated. With LocationTech
>>>>>>>     involved we get a group that already has a strong institutional
>>>>>>>     membership base, and key relationships to the organizations
>>>>>>>     that are likely to be sponsors for this event. That’s both a
>>>>>>>     tremendous amount of work that doesn’t have to depend on
>>>>>>>     volunteer time, with a far greater chance of success in
>>>>>>>     securing sponsorships that financially de-risk this event.
>>>>>>>     3. With LocationTech involved, I feel we have a much greater
>>>>>>>     chance of securing higher attendance due to the direct
>>>>>>>     marketing access that comes with this to the LocationTech and
>>>>>>>     Eclipse community.
>>>>>>>     4. LocationTech has a unique motivation to make this a great
>>>>>>>     event — which is advancing the open source geospatial
>>>>>>>     technology movement, something that is core to their
>>>>>>>     raison-d’etre, and as such, I know they would put their heart
>>>>>>>     and soul into this in a way we could not expect from any other
>>>>>>>     PCO.
>>>>>>>     Finally, I just want to re-iterate in case there is any
>>>>>>>     confusion here, that we as an LOC have put this bid forward
>>>>>>>     from the get-go with a goal of putting on a great OSGeo event.
>>>>>>>     This is the LOCs bid to host this event, and not Eclipse. It is
>>>>>>>     the LOC that will be the driver of what this whole event will
>>>>>>>     look like, and the LOC will be working with OSGeo to ensure
>>>>>>>     this is a great world class event reflective of OSGeo’s needs.
>>>>>>>     Our choice of a PCO is because it makes the most sense to us
>>>>>>>     logistically to pull this off.
>>>>>>>     There were good questions about branding, and I think we’ve
>>>>>>>     made it clear — this is the OSGeo Global FOSS4G event, that’s
>>>>>>>     what we want it to be as the LOC and what we’re committed to
>>>>>>>     putting on. LocationTech will have presence of course as we
>>>>>>>     indicated, in a similar manner to their past participation at
>>>>>>>     FOSS4G.
>>>>>>>     I’ve been involved in this personally for a long time, as one
>>>>>>>     of the original founders of OSGeo and our Local Chapter, former
>>>>>>>     Board Member and Treasurer, and continuing member of this
>>>>>>>     conference committee. By being the chair of this event, I’m
>>>>>>>     putting my reputation on the line here to put on a great show
>>>>>>>     for the Foundation, it’s projects, and it’s members. I hope
>>>>>>>     that can be sufficient to put any concerns about our PCO to rest.
>>>>>>>     Best of luck to the committee with your deliberations. You have
>>>>>>>     some very good proposals and keen LOCs to choose from. No
>>>>>>>     matter what, I’m sure OSGeo is going to get a great event in
>>>>>>>     2017 - we look forward to your decision.
>>>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>>>>     On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>     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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list