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

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 01:37:28 PDT 2015 

+1 from me
______
Steven


> On 7 Sep 2015, at 23:50, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20150908/e4e55601/attachment.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list