[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Motion: 2016 Financial Agreement

[Steven Feldman]

Board

For clarification, I have analysed the OSGeo/FOSS4G agreements for the last few years at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1awsek1VhXSpgca4tjT_VC_70eRYybwjZVXsY4YawJ7c/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1awsek1VhXSpgca4tjT_VC_70eRYybwjZVXsY4YawJ7c/edit?usp=sharing> 

In most years OSGeo has signed an agreement with the PCO and in 2013 with the venue directly. As far as i can see none of these agreements had any cap on the liabilities of OSGeo if something went badly wrong, typically a late cancellation could expose a liability of 70-80% of costs. 

I do not know whether the OSGeo board was fully aware of the commitments is was making in each year that it signed such an agreement? 

The proposed agreement limited OSGeo liability to €100k, this is less of a risk than in previous years.

I suggest the conference committee makes the prospective bidders for FOSS4G 2017 aware of the uncertainty regarding financial guarantees from OSGeo so that they can factor this risk into their proposals.
______
Steven


> On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:44, board-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:
> 
> From: Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>>
> Subject: Re: [Board] Motion: 2016 Financial Agreement
> Date: 10 September 2015 18:14:15 BST
> To: michael.smith.erdc at gmail.com <mailto:michael.smith.erdc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>" <board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>>
> 
> 
> My vote is +1 on this.
> 
> But to be honest I’m very disappointed that we are not more supportive of the LOC.
> 
> If I was the 2016 LOC, I would not wait for OSGeo and go my own way with an insurance and also not giving back substantial funds to OSGeo.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bart
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20150910/2a24d567/attachment.html>