[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Handbook - Financial expectations

Sun Sep 11 15:12:37 PDT 2016

The limit we had was (and still is) 400 people and therefore the venue is not suitable for 1000 delegates. No streaming and we made the video for the main sessions. Gala dinner was not included (anyway it was 35 euro).  Costs were for renting the location, staff, the service who helped us with registration and sponsors, catering (icebreaker/coffee breaks/lunches), t-shirt, bags,brochure, ...

We started deciding to provide a plain conference (=nothing) and adding one more embellishment at a time. At the end we were able to give meal and coffee everyday.  We spent everything (with the few money we "earned" we - my assistants and PhD students and I - went to a restaurant for celebrating the success of the conference).

I didn't check how much it can cost in Italy for 1000 people and I can. But before doing that I have to verify with the Italian Community if they are interested in doing that. If you think it is worth my doing, I'll do.

Best!

Maria

----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
Sol Katz Award 2015

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> maria.brovelli at polimi.it
e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it

________________________________
Da: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
Inviato: domenica 11 settembre 2016 23.39
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli
Cc: Michael Terner; Venkatesh Raghavan; Guido Stein; conference
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Handbook - Financial expectations

Maria

Could you share some of the numbers from your conference:
Venue fees
Number of delegates
Number of streams
Cost for video
Catering cost per head
Icebreaker
Gala night
Other major costs

Do you think you would have been able to accommodate 800-900 people at those rates in that venue? If so we should look at Como for 2019.

I think the economics will vary for each city and venue. Perhaps we should make it clear that we would welcome alternative venue and cost proposals that potentially make the event cheaper to attend without excluding the possibility of a higher priced venue. If we get options running between say $200 for the 3 days and $650 then the conference committee will have an interesting choice to make.

For 2018 we could also express our desire to make the event as accessible as possible and see what options are submitted?
______
Steven

On 11 Sep 2016, at 22:28, Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:

Dear Michael, I wonder how it was possible for me to organize a conference with a fee of 100 euro for 3 days ( 50 euro for students). I understand that Boston is more expensive than Como. But more than three times? Is it not possible to organize the conference at one university? Keeping the costs low means giving more possibility of participation to the people of our community.
Many thanks!
Maria

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com<mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>>
Date: 11/09/2016 18:49 (GMT+01:00)
To: Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com<mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>>, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com<mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>>, Guido Stein <gstein at appgeo.com<mailto:gstein at appgeo.com>>
Cc: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Handbook - Financial expectations

As the group in the "on deck circle", this has been a very interesting and important thread to read. I hope that sharing the Boston team's outlook and perspective is useful to this conversation. Indeed, many of the things we believe and are pursuing are already reflected:

  1.  As Venka observes, we are not pursuing a "budget venue" approach. We are in a large, urban city and as Steven wrote the economics for finding this kind of space make $100/day really, really difficult (if not impossible). But, we also believe we are in a desirable location with a dynamic tech city and an incredible academic community that will help draw interest. We also want to create a local, regional and USA buzz so that Boston is The Place to Be for understanding some of the international trends in geo open source, and even the geo industry more broadly. As Eddie Pickle has observed, why shouldn't FOSS4G be the #2 "geo event" on the planet? In other words, one of our goals is to attract more people who will be able to pay the full costs of the conference. From our vantage, this shouldn't be a "low budget affair", it should be an important "international happening."
  2.  That said, we fully understand the reality and necessity to keep the show as affordable as possible, and that there are very important communities that we would like to have attend where the published costs will be a challenge. We have plans for student volunteers and other kinds of discounts already. But, the way that some of the conference economics work, there is a tipping point where a larger conference actually can be a lower of the core conference costs (i.e., the venue, wifi, video, etc.) are prorated across more people. We want to be the first FOSS4G to draw >1,000 people and we think we have a good shot at it. We also are going to be very aggressive in pursuing sponsorship, both from the established sponsor community, but also from first time sponsors, and tech companies in Boston. This too will help generate revenue and control costs. If we meet our attendance and sponsorship goals, we will return a significant profit to OSGeo and we hope that those profits can be used for the kinds of programs that Eli mentioned, i.e., committees that distribute travel grants; or provide support to events in the developing world; etc. Indeed, we have already proposed to follow Cameron's suggestion and expressed our return of profit to OSGeo as a percentage. Our proposal states returning 80% of profits up to $100K, and 100% of profits that are above $100k should we be lucky enough to be that successful.

Having just returned from Bonn, we are more excited and more committed than ever (I just posted a blog on my impressions and experiences<http://www.appgeo.com/blog/picked-pieces-global-2017-foss4g-conference-bonn-germany/>). And, we believe we can follow Till's and the Bonn LOC's example in making this an exciting and dynamic event in a unique part of the world. Bonn's World Conference Center venue was worth its cost and added greatly to the event. We believe people will come to this kind of event; and we are equally committed in using the paying audience as a means of controlling costs and/or providing discounts to those who need them.

All the best...

MT

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com<mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
I do not think we need to select a "budget venue".
Wonderful venues (perhaps, better than what we have seen thus far)
are available at a lower price in low-income countries.

I do not talk of any compromise on "core items" expected in
FOSS4G conferences. Is video streaming a "core item" which
was only recently possible in FOSS4G conferences?
If we say that this is a "core item", that is as good as
saying that FOSS4G conferences will be organized only in
OECD countries.

Venka

On 9/10/2016 5:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Hi Venka,

I think that you are on the right track discussing "lower budget" foss4g
conference in "lower income" countries.

While the Global FOSS4G is firstly an international "gathering of the
tribes" and should prioritise needs of the international attendees, we
should recognise that historically over half the attendees come from the
local region. I agree that it makes sense to see what can be done to
help attract local attendees. If that means minimising costs, maybe by
selecting budget venues etc, then a LOC should have the flexibility to
suggest such options. However, selection budget options, should not
translate to reducing the core items which are expected in FOSS4G
conferences.

Warm regards, Cameron

On 10/09/2016 1:47 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
Hi Cameron,

My comments inline.

On 9/9/2016 9:05 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Hi Venka,

Thanks for suggesting specific ideas to implement.

For this email thread, I'd like to focus on your suggestions related to
financial expectations, so we can take it through to resolution. Namely,
your item 5. Defining how profit should be returned to OSGeo.

I suggest it is safer to define budget returned to OSGeo as a percentage
of profit. As profit closely aligns with number of attendees, profit
will be larger for larger events. Europe and US have historically
attracted larger attendance than "Rest of World" and hence will return
larger profit. As such, OSGeo should expect to earn less in "Rest of
World" years.

Yes, I agree with above. However "Rest of the World" include only
low-income countries and not high-income countries like Australia,
Japan, Korea etc. FOSS4G Conferences in low-income countries may spend
less (lower venue and food costs) and also earn less compared to events
in Europe and North America.

I thought the RFP defined an expected budget to be returned to OSGeo
under conservative estimates, but I can't find reference to it. (Maybe
someone else can point to it).

For management of special interest programs and sponsorship, I suggest
refer to the email thread "FOSS4G Simplicity" started by Eli Adam,
suggesting the be coordinated outside of the FOSS4G LOC (Like the
academic track).

I agree to making thinks easier and simpler coordinating Academic Track,
Awards, Travel Grants outside the LoC.

Best

Venka

On 9/09/2016 10:03 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
My Comments inline.

On 9/9/2016 7:40 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Maria

Nice image, what are you suggesting in terms of the RfP? ______
Steven

On 8 Sep 2016, at 22:03, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:

<equity.jpg>

Dear Cameron I prefer to take into account the differences among
countries. We want to elicit people developing and using open
source and we want to walk all together toward this result.
Equality often is not the best choice. Best regards Maria

+1 for Maria's suggestion.

I would suggest the following;

1) There was some comment on issue of too many people
requesting for free conference passes.
We need to clearly decide a guideline for offering free passes.
Free passes only offered to main Workshop Trainer, Keynote speakers and
student volunteers? Apart from that *no one* gets a free pass.

2) continue the discounted conference fee model for
low-income countries. This model has been successfully
used in FOSS4G-2015

3) Offer Travel support only for participants who are
have their presentation accepted at the FOSS4G conference.

4) Are we considering live streaming in future FOSS4G events?
In that case, request local chapters to organize local "FOSS4GFest"
during the duration of the main FOSS4G Conference and
take advantage of watching the live-streaming along with
the local community members who are unable to physically make it
to the FOSS4G event.

5) Consider recommending LoC to return a minimum fixed amount
of profit to OSGeo. Taking into account, that OSGeo annual
budget for 2015 is $75,000, we could consider having $50K-$60K
returned from the profit to OSGeo foundation when FOSS4G is
organized in high-income countries and $25K-$30K when FOSS4G
is organized in low-income countries (they can retain part of
the profit for organizing events to grow local communities, but
should submit a budget report in subsequent FOSS4G conferences
as to how the profits were used). This will help the foundation to
sustain the "Travel Grant", "Student Award" and "Code Sprint" at
FOSS4G events.

6) If the LoC of FOSS4G event is able to generate more profit
that stated in item 5 above, let them have a say in planning
how such "extra" profit will be used in future.

7) Consider a upper cap on the conference registration fee.
I would suggest $100/day of conference event when organized
in high-income countries. This would be much lower when FOSS4G
is organized in a low-income country

Best

Venka

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message -------- From: Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> Date: 08/09/2016 22:53 (GMT+01:00) To:
conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>> Subject: Re:
[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Handbook - Financial expectations

Ok, lets start working through Steven's list one item at a time,
starting a new email thread for each.

Once we have resolution (probably concluding with a vote) we can
finalise it in the foss4g handbook.

On 8/09/2016 9:12 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
1) Overall financial expectations re surplus and sharing of
surplus with OSGeo - possibly setting slightly different
expectations for RoW to NA & EU

We have draft principles on Finances in the handbook here:
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances>

I suggest using this existing text as the basis for guidance. I
personally think it has the right principles in place. In
particular, it is recommending each conference aim to hand over a
fixed percentage of profits as surplus to OSGeo. 85% is suggested.
I prefer this advise over the suggestion that low income countries
 retain more profit.

-- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254<tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254>

_______________________________________________ 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
<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

--
Michael Terner
Executive Vice President
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
www.AppGeo.com<http://www.appgeo.com/>
Celebrating our 25th Anniversary

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160911/74810084/attachment-0001.html>