[OSGeo-Conf] Draft agreement between OSGeo and FOSSGIS eV re finance for FOSS4G 2016
Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting OSGeo.nl
gert-jan at osgeo.nl
Sun Sep 6 02:45:50 PDT 2015
Although not my primary cup-of-tea I'd like to add one comment:
The agreement says it determines the "arrangements between the LOC and/or PCO and OSGeo".
My interpretation from that sentence is that there are apparantly 3 parties involved (LOC, PCO, OSgeo).
However, in the firt paragraph there are only 2 parties identified (OSGeo and FOSSGIS e.V., the LOC).
Of course the parties involved will have a clue about what the POC is, but in formal contract (as this document is supposed to be) I'd explain the POC-role is one or two sentences.
till.adams at fossgis.de schreef:
> just my comments:
> The 85% are prposed for the template, which should be used every
> year from now on. So any LOC has to refund at least 85% of the
> outcome to OSGeo. The 90% are our specific offer to OSGeo, so that's
> specialized for the LOC 2016.
> Maybe there are some local chapters, that are happy to have the
> opportunity to get some money from a very likely outcome of a FOSS4G.
> For us, FOSSGIS e.V. (which is the legal entity behind LOC 2016) we
> do not need some % of the outcome, because we have our own
> conference and with that our own income.
> I asked myself about the 30 days, but thought, okay, that seed-money
> must be on our account after conference. But the way you wrote it is
> fine also.
> Just my notes,
> regards, Till
> Am 2015-09-03 20:26, schrieb Eli Adam:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jeff McKenna
>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>>> Many issues with that PDF (thanks GoogleDocs). I fixed them (ended up
>>> creating a new empty document and renaming, yikes). Here are
>>> correct links:
>> Thanks for fixing.
>>> On 2015-09-03 12:15 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>> I have drafted an agreement between OSGeo and FOSSGIS eV re finance for
>>>> FOSS4G 2016. See
>> Thanks for putting this together.
>>>> Till and I have gone through it, made a couple of improvements and we
>>>> are both happy with it.
>>>> The next step is for the conference committee to either approve it or
>>>> suggest amendments.
>> In one spot it said 85%, in another 90%. I've change it to 90% in
>> both places, https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/changeset/12516/. If they
>> should both be 85% then we can change it back.
>> Pertaining to "9. The Advance will be repaid to OSGeo by the LOC
>> within 30 days of the end of the Event", that sort of conflicts with
>> the whole agreement. The agreement is that OSGeo may not get the 50K
>> back as well as possibly lose another 50k. Also, I don't see anything
>> like that getting done in 30 days (looking at past years, 6 months
>> seems like the average). I think that something to the effect of, "9.
>> The LOC will provide a written report on financial accounting
>> detailing balance of revenues and expenses and outstanding
>> indeterminates within 30 days of the event. Based on availability,
>> arrangement will be made to repay the seed money promptly and the rest
>> of any surplus on a later timeline." is more realistic.
>>>> Can you give feedback before Monday morning?
>> Monday is a holiday in the US. Tuesday morning may be a more
>> reasonable deadline for some US people (but they also have today and
>>>> Assuming there are no major objections I suggest that Eli as Chair of
>>>> the Conference Committee submits to the Board as a recommendation for
>>>> them to vote on.
>> Once we have this done, I'll add it to the Board agenda and notify the
>> Board of our recommendation.
>> Thanks, Eli
>>>> Phew, that was more work than I had imagined
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Conference_dev