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

Bart van den Eijnden bartvde at osgis.nl
Tue Sep 8 01:44:43 PDT 2015 

Just one question to confirm, so fluctuations in EUR/USD are at the risk of the LOC?

Best regards,
Bart

> On 08 Sep 2015, at 10:37, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 from me
> ______
> Steven
> 
> 
>> On 7 Sep 2015, at 23:50, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto: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 <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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150908/78fd6a01/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list