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

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 13:27:31 PDT 2018


+1 from me that future global FOSS4G RFP documents require organising 
committees publish full accounts (at a similar level of detail to the 
budget submitted with the RfP) within x months of the event finishing.

Such information should also be provided by large regional FOSS4G events 
(such as FOSS4G-NA), and strongly encouraged (but not mandated) from 
smaller regional and local events. (The smaller events often don't have 
as much process and capacity.)

Such information should also be linked from our FOSS4G Cookbook at: 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Budget


On 14/6/18 9:09 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:
> 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
>
> ______
> Steven
>
>
>> On 14 Jun 2018, at 04:44, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com 
>> <mailto: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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>     [0b] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1001543441053114368
>>>     [0c] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/994930635096641536
>>>     [1] https://i.imgur.com/NlbXb4t.png
>>>     [2] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/992394814749577217
>>>     [3] 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>> 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 <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180615/c02b990a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Conference_dev mailing list