[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G-NA -- request for financial records

Thu Jun 14 04:09:37 PDT 2018

It has been the "norm” but not a requirement that LOCs publish their accounts following a FOSS4G. In the case of a global event where OSGeo has a funding agreement or guarantee with the LOC in return for a share of the surplus (if any) then an "open book" approach is implicit in that agreement. 

I would not expect preparing a schedule of income and expenditure for a conference to be a lot of effort. The organising team or their PCO must maintain some schedules to record income and expenditure. 

I just had a quick look at the RfP doc and it does not explicitly state that full accounts (at a similar level of detail to the budget submitted with the RfP) should be published within x months of the event finishing. I suggest we add that requirement to the RfP doc for 2020.

Here are the accounts for FOSS4G 2013 which we published in December 2013 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YdFNuBNaJK2XeA-bs1vU24VA1Qv9HpN8rLs30D9_0zg/edit#gid=1040179171 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YdFNuBNaJK2XeA-bs1vU24VA1Qv9HpN8rLs30D9_0zg/edit#gid=1040179171>

______
Steven

> On 14 Jun 2018, at 04:44, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sara,
> 
> I'd suggest it might be helpful to explain why you are requesting people open the books. Providing a worthy motivation will likely help inspire a volunteer to help you.
> There is typically quite a bit of volunteer effort required to pull together past data into a usable format. Quite often it requires data to be de-personalised for public consumption. Maybe you can say something along the lines of "if you release the metrics, then I will be able to add value to the osgeo community to help ..."
> 
> On 14/6/18 8:20 am, michael terner wrote:
>> Sara:
>> I fully support the notion of "open books" and the Boston Team has endeavored to do that. Indeed, when asking volunteers to do so much in this ecosystem it is important to have openness around the finances.
>> 
>> This tweet from Matthew Hanson had a picture of the "raw" (and rounded) Boston numbers that I presented in a talk at FOSS4GNA in STL:
>> https://twitter.com/GeoSkeptic/status/996147340854652928 <https://twitter.com/GeoSkeptic/status/996147340854652928> 
>> 
>> There's one other slide in that deck that showed the net results (i.e., surplus) and I would be happy to share the entire deck with this list if useful. Just ask. (And, we have lots of other more granular data if there are other, specific questions [e.g., speaker fees; # of people who were early bird; etc.]).
>> 
>> That said, the numbers by themselves don't tell the entire story as there is a whole lot of context that matters greatly. Stuff like:
>> Organizers do not know how the numbers will fully add up until a good bit after the conference. Indeed, there are both trailing expenses to pay, and revenue to collect (some of which are dependent on the actual attendance you achieve). And, some accounting/spreadsheet work to do by already tired volunteers.
>> Conference registrations are slow to pour in. So while Boston ultimately harvested a sizable surplus, we did not know until 2 weeks before the conference that we had achieved our break-even number. If we knew what our final attendance would be in advance we would have surely lowered our prices and/or better funded the travel grant program. But we, nor any other organizer, has that luxury. We are pleased that some of our surplus is going to support the Dar es Salaam conference through OSGeo paying for sponsorship for that event.
>> Decisions that organizers make greatly impact the finances. Things ranging from providing day care, to giving all speakers a free pass, to the location of the host city, greatly impact costs/revenues while serving other important objectives.  
>> Indeed, it is an imperfect science and the Boston team was petrified by our finances up until that "break even" moment 2 weeks before the conference started. But it is also the imperfectness of this science that makes "opening the books" so important as all future conferences can learn from both past triumphs and mistakes. I would never look askance at a set of numbers that told a sadder story than Boston's (unless there was abject corruption, or something like that). Running a conference is hard and in all of the FOSS4G and FOSS4GNA conferences I've volunteered on (which now numbers 5, and includes STL) I have never doubted than anyone acted in a way other than to deliver the best possible conference at the lowest possible cost. I also don't expect that everyone would make the same choices that we did in Boston. Indeed, the Chair and his/her LOC make the choices they feel will lead to the best/most successful conference. Second guessing is a natural impulse, but it easier to do than running the conference. And, from my vantage, open books are important as they serve to help explain the choices that were made, and the financial impact of those choices.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> MT
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:18 PM Sara <sara at sarasafavi.com <mailto:sara at sarasafavi.com>> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> Some of you may be aware that for the past ~5 weeks, I have periodically renewed a public request [0] for FOSS4G-NA 2018's financial records. 
>> 
>> Yesterday, Marc Vloemans, speaking on behalf of LocationTech, said that I was "misrepresenting" this issue [1]. That's certainly not my intent, so I'd like to clarify the basis for my ongoing request in longform, and renew said request in this forum.
>> 
>> - On May 4, 2018, a LocationTech representative stated publicly that FOSS4G-NA's "financials are open, have always been" [2]
>> 
>> - Later the same day, the same representative said that they were "working on posting all our materials to the wiki (...) Expect those late this week" [3]
>> 
>> - Those statements now appear to be contradicted by the recent comment [1] that "there is no obligation" of LocationTech to share FOSS4G-NA financials
>> 
>> My ongoing requests have thus far been an attempt to continue the conversation that originally took place on twitter on May 4th. As Marc said last night that he does not "communicate with people via twitter" [1], I'm more than happy to continue the public conversation with him or any relevant representative(s) here. 
>> 
>> [0a] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1006304174332661760 <https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1006304174332661760>
>> [0b] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1001543441053114368 <https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1001543441053114368>
>> [0c] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/994930635096641536 <https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/994930635096641536>
>> [1] https://i.imgur.com/NlbXb4t.png <https://i.imgur.com/NlbXb4t.png>
>> [2] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/992394814749577217 <https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/992394814749577217>
>> [3] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/993584128279957504 <https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/993584128279957504>
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Sara Safavi
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>> 
>> -- 
>> Michael Terner
>> ternergeo at gmail.com <mailto:ternergeo at gmail.com>
>> (M) 978-631-6602
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
> 
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180614/efc7c453/attachment.html>