[OSGeo-Conf] Draft agreement between OSGeo and FOSSGIS eV re finance for FOSS4G 2016

Sun Sep 6 07:08:18 PDT 2015

Hi Gert-Jan,

yes, we have an PCO, but as we as FOSSGIS e.V. are a legal entity on 
our own, there is no need to include our PCO in this agreement. PCO is 
just contracted thruogh FOSSGIS later. This was in some earlier cases 
different, as OCL didn't have any legal entity.

So far, Till

Am 2015-09-04 15:32, schrieb geejee at dds.nl:
> Although not my primary cup-of-tea 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,
> just above this text 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.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert-Jan
>
>
>
>
>
> till.adams at fossgis.de schreef:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> pdf:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2016/financial_stuff/agreement_with_osgeo/Agreement-between-OSGeo-and-FOSSGISeV-2016.pdf
>>>>
>>>> odt:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2016/financial_stuff/agreement_with_osgeo/Agreement-between-OSGeo-and-FOSSGISeV-2016.odt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2016/financial_stuff/agreement_with_osgeo/DraftagreementbetweenOSGeoandaFOSS4GLOC.pdf
>>>>> 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
>>> tomorrow).
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> ______
>>>>> Steven
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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