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

Tue Sep 8 01:49:39 PDT 2015

Ah sorry, that’s a stupid question in hindsight, since the agreement is in EUR there is no currency risk for the LOC, only for OSGeo.

Best regards,
Bart

> On 08 Sep 2015, at 10:44, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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/ <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 <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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/20150908/414ffa78/attachment.html>