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

[Eli Adam]

Conference Committee members, could you please voice an opinion on
this proposed agreement (or specific comments)?

https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/2016/financial_stuff/agreement_with_osgeo/Agreement-between-OSGeo-and-FOSSGISeV-2016.pdf

+1 from me.

Thanks, Eli

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 7:08 AM,  <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev