[OSGeo-Conf] Fwd: Re: [Board] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

Dear All,

I am subscribed to the conference list with a different
e-mail and my earlier mail to this list informing
about the board approval for 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding
request did not reach this list.

I forward may earlier mail from my subscribed address.

Best

Venka


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding 
- IMPORTANT
Date: 	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:57:55 +0900
From: 	Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
To: 	Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com>, OSGeo Board <board at lists.osgeo.org>
CC: 	conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>



Hi Micheal and All,

I am glad to inform that the Board has approved the
Motion to approve the FOSS4G-2017 Boston agreement &
seed funding funding request.

Let us know the next steps to be taken from our side to get
the agreement signed.

Best

Venka

On 2016/03/15 21:17, Michael Terner wrote:
> Venka:
> Thanks for the fair questions and thanks to the board for the serious
> consideration of our request.
>
> Steven, thanks for the general outline of a response and an enumeration of
> our request. Your four points are entirely accurate and indeed several
> people guided us to examine the Bonn agreement as a template for an
> OSGeo/LOC agreement. This is precisely what we did, although in our case,
> and unlike Bonn, the BLOC is not a legal entity and thus as with some past
> conferences our PCO is part of the agreement as our "financial agent". So
> here are a few additional details on the four main points:
>
>     1. *Names*: Our agreement has three parties: OSGeo, the Boston Location
>     Organizing Committee (BLOC) and Delaney Meeting & Event Management, our
>     PCO, who is acting as our financial agent.
>     2. *Seed funding*: We are asking for approval of up to maximum of
>     $70,000 of advances. As per the email threads, we anticipate doing this
>     through two separate requests. The first would be for $20,000 +/-
>     immediately following our hoped for approval of the agreement. The second
>     would be for the remaining $50,000 after the Bonn Conference concludes and
>     as we begin to ramp up at a faster pace (and as deposits come due).
>     3. *Additional guarantee*: Again, we followed the Bonn agreement model,
>     and as Steven points out the "total exposure" for OSGeo between the
>     advances and additional guarantee are the same for both Boston and Bonn. I
>     would also observe that the known precedent of OSGeo providing these
>     guarantees was something we considered strongly in forming our bid. Indeed,
>     both the BLOC and OSGeo are "in this together" with substantial "skin in
>     the game" and we are both strongly motivated for a superior and financially
>     successful event. We will work tirelessly to ensure Boston continues the
>     FOSS4G streak of being financially successful.
>     4. *Contractual clauses*: As has happened over the years, we would
>     certainly urge OSGeo to continue building on the template agreement and
>     these clauses provide important *mutual *protections as well as
>     providing a framework for cost-effective dispute resolution in the unlikely
>     event it is needed. They are standard clauses, but they also articulate
>     important principles.
>
> Last, please consider the BLOC to have a strong +1 to Dirk's suggestion
> that OSGeo look at an insurance approach for FOSS4G that could be designed
> to cover future events and could leverage the good financial record of past
> FOSS4G's. This would be one more thing that the "next conference" (e.g.,
> 2018) would not have to start from scratch with. Along those lines, we very
> much appreciate Cameron resuscitating the "Priorities for Conference
> Committee" thread, and anticipate chiming in over the coming weekend.
> Indeed, the "starting from scratch" issues are something that are
> resonating with our team.
>
> Please let us know if you have any further questions, or need
> clarifications on the points made above. We remain very hopeful that we can
> receive Board approval *this week*. And, we are also hopeful that if we do
> receive that approval it will be provided with some guidance on "what comes
> next" in terms of putting signatures on the agreement and formally
> initiating the financial request for an advance. The signatures part is
> most important as we continue to face a near term deadline for signing an
> agreement with our venue that will legally secure the date.
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> MT & the BLOC
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Steven,
>>
>> This is a clear statement and an improvement of the contract in relation
>> to last year in relation to exposed risk.
>>
>> i.m.h.o. this should pass the board's decision for this event. If the
>> board should have still questions about the contract in general, we
>> should discuss them and formulate an advise for improvement for future
>> events.
>> One improvement could be that OSGeo get insured for the extra exposed
>> risk (for future events), based on the financial history of all the
>> FOSS4G events in the past.
>>
>> Dirk.
>>
>>
>> On 14-03-16 16:39, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>> Venda, Board
>>>
>>> The proposed agreement is identical to the one that OSGeo has entered
>> into with Bonn for 2016, with the following variations:
>>> 1. The names
>>> 2. The seed funding is up to £70,000 not $57.500
>>> 3. The advance is for up to $45,000 not $57,500 (overall the total
>> exposure is the same as 2016 at $115,000)
>>> 4. The insertion of Mitigation, Indemnification and Arbitration clauses
>> which I understand are standard clauses in US agreements of this type and
>> apply equally to both parties.
>>> The additional guarantee is intended to cover the very unlikely
>> circumstance that the FOSS4G is financially unsuccessful. If the event
>> loses money OSGeo is at risk of losing our seed money and an additional
>> $45,000 up to a maximum exposure of $115,000. This agreement limits our
>> exposure to $115,000 previously we had potentially unlimited exposure.
>>> I hope this helps the board in considering this motion
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> ______
>>> Steven


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160317/df316775/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
Board at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board