[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT
shfeldman at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 12:27:42 PDT 2016
Michael will get the signed agreement out to you for counter signature.
As per the agreement the Board needs to appoint a financial representative to the 2017 LOC. In the past the board has encouraged a past chair (who was a board member) to join the LOC to provide some continuity and experience from previous events - this has been an informal arrangement. These two roles could be combined.
For 2016 I am fulfilling the joint role with the Bonn LOC.
> On 16 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> -------- 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> <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
> To: Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> <mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>, OSGeo Board <board at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>
> CC: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto: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.
> 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> <mailto: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
> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conference_dev