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

Thu Jun 14 20:26:19 PDT 2018

Hi,

My understanding of what is happening here is this: a LocationTech employee
mis-spoke about the organization's intentions about reporting financial
data, which was never a requirement put on the organization nor the
intention of the organization. The result has been a set of valid
questions, which should be answered clearly.

I can confirm that the FOSS4G NA core committee never required the Eclipse
Foundation or LocationTech to report financial data as part of brining them
on as the logistics organizer.

Moving forward, if the community decides that it's right and fair that the
organization receiving sponsor money and taking ticket money for the
conference report on a specific level of P/L data, then that requirement
can be put into place and clearly communicated before any commitments are
made. We (the core committee) had asked LocationTech if it was possible to
report financial data in past years, and they politely declined for the
reasons listed (I believe fairly), and we dropped the issue. This could
represent a failing on our part to uphold the ideal of transparency, and if
that is the case, then this misunderstanding is on us. One could argue we
should have forced the issue, and if LocationTech had not acquiesced, we
should have not used them as the LO. I was not of that opinion at the time
and remain that way, though I understand and respect why transparency is
important, and could very possibly be wrong. However, I believe
LocationTech ran great conferences with honest and hard effort, for the
good of the community. I appreciate the work they put in, while
simultaneously hoping that the next conference committee, LO, and the core
committee can do better in the future.

Thanks,
Rob

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Sara <sara at sarasafavi.com> wrote:

> Hi Marc:
>
> Please do not bring my employer into this. That is threatening behavior,
> and is incredibly inappropriate for anyone in this community to engage in.
>
> The fact that I was Program Chair of FOSS4G-NA 2018 for six months is no
> secret: among many reasons documented elsewhere, I found a replacement for
> myself and stepped down from the role in order to maintain "separation of
> church & state", as it were, when I felt it was no longer tenable to
> represent both my employer and FOSS4G-NA at the same time (this directly
> followed you asking Sara-the-Program-Chair to "wiggle a platinum
> sponsorship from" her employer).
>
> Come on, folks. I'm not trying to make unreasonable demands. I'm not
> trying to launch any missiles. I'm just trying to continue a conversation
> that LocationTech staff started on May 4. Personal attacks on me and
> dismissing this as a "non-discussion" aren't constructive.
>
> --Sara
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Marc Vloemans <marcvloemans1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> After so many tweets, posts, blogs etc. I feel a formal response is
>> needed.
>>
>> LocationTech - as part of a longstanding agreement with the Core
>> Committee of Foss4g NA - has acted as the contractor/producer of this
>> conference.
>> This entailed that all pre-conference investments and financial risks
>> were off the shoulders of OSGeo.org. Regional conferences like this one
>> elsewhere in the world are taken on by local/regional chapters. But until
>> some weeks ago there was no such chapter in North America. Therefor this
>> special construct.
>> LocationTech has informed the Core Committee before “St Louis” that we
>> would  not be able to continue this arrangement as the financial and human
>> resources were beyond its means.
>>
>> The demands made by Sara Safavi to give insight into the books are not
>> appropriate. Comparable to a customer asking her employer (Planet Labs) to
>> open their books to a customer. Since FOSS4G NA mostly relied on
>> professional staff (instead of volunteers like in “Boston” and Companies
>> sponsoring their employee’s time) this would give third parties indirect
>> information re salaries etc.
>> And I will not do that. Ever. Especially if persons try to force my hand,
>> when they have no legal, moral or other right to this type of personal
>> information.
>>
>> Furthermore, I would like to emphasise that Sara has been Program Chair
>> of FOSS4G NA 2018 until the deadline for the CfP. She has been aware of
>> this arrangement from the beginning....
>>
>> On another note; this non-discussion is damaging the Core Committee, the
>> FOSS4G NA and overall brands at large and OSGeo (both .org and US). And the
>> great working relationship between OSGeo and LocationTech. But furthermore,
>> it makes our community a place where those who put in actual work and
>> energy are subjected to harassment. With the silent approval of the
>> majority.....
>> If we want to keep present/attract future volunteers, partners,
>> supporters and sponsors we need to put a stop to this type of behaviour.
>> Right here and now. Otherwise we dig our collective grave.
>>
>> If the majority keeps their silence then OSGeo has become a very toxic
>> place, indeed!
>>
>> (And I still wonder whether the demands represent Planet Labs’ (who was a
>> welcome and respected sponsor of this year’s FOSS4G NA) opinion or not
>> .....)
>>
>> Hope this gives background and puts an end to this non-discussion.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> >
>> > -------- Original Message --------
>> > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G-NA -- request for financial records
>> > Date: 2018-06-14 14:23
>> > From: Sara <sara at sarasafavi.com>
>> > To: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: michael terner <ternergeo at gmail.com>,
>> foss4gna_selection at googlegroups.com, Conference Dev <
>> conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >
>> > Hi Cameron, all:
>> >
>> > Sure, happy to explain further: my request is for information that
>> > LocationTech already stated publicly was "open", "has always been", and
>> > would be posted to OSGeo's wiki -- to actually be made open and posted
>> > to the wiki. If LocationTech either misspoke, lied, or changed their
>> > mind on that then as a community member/volunteer/sponsor I would like
>> > to know why. I'm not alone in this, either: I'm just today's squeaky
>> > wheel. :)
>> >
>> > As Steven said:
>> >> 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'm not expecting miracles, but as a community centered around
>> > transparency and openness it seems unusual to not have at least some
>> > insight into one of our larger event's basic financial records. As Mike
>> > & Steven both point out, though not a requirement this is a longstanding
>> > community norm for many FOSS4G events.
>> >
>> > Considering the past conversations we've all seen on the distro lists
>> > re: this working group/LOC specifically and transparency, I'm surprised
>> > that one now needs to provide "a worthy motivation" to even pose the
>> > question. Meanwhile off-list I'm getting private messages telling me to
>> > "just let this go". Did I miss a memo or something?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:44 PM, 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 [2]
>> >> 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> 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 [3]
>> >> [0b] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1001543441053114368 [4]
>> >> [0c] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/994930635096641536 [5]
>> >> [1] https://i.imgur.com/NlbXb4t.png [6]
>> >> [2] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/992394814749577217 [7]
>> >> [3] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/993584128279957504 [8]
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Sara Safavi _______________________________________________
>> >> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [1]
>> >> --
>> >> Michael Terner
>> >> 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 [1]
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cameron Shorter
>> > Technology Demystifier
>> > Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>> >
>> > M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups "foss4gna_selection" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an email to foss4gna_selection+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to
>> > foss4gna_selection at googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/foss4gna_selection/CAF%2BW
>> 3R5DUHRdPoFR%3D-Z19WJug0FO7cybxGZHxq_fVxAfe9Hd8Q%40mail.gmail.com
>> > [9].
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>> >
>> > Links:
>> > ------
>> > [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> > [2] https://twitter.com/GeoSkeptic/status/996147340854652928
>> > [3] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1006304174332661760
>> > [4] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/1001543441053114368
>> > [5] https://twitter.com/sarasomewhere/status/994930635096641536
>> > [6] https://i.imgur.com/NlbXb4t.png
>> > [7] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/992394814749577217
>> > [8] https://twitter.com/TheaClay/status/993584128279957504
>> > [9] https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/foss4gna_selection/CAF%2BW
>> 3R5DUHRdPoFR%3D-Z19WJug0FO7cybxGZHxq_fVxAfe9Hd8Q%40mail.
>> gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foss4gna_selection" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foss4gna_selection+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to foss4gna_selection at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/foss4gna_selection/CAF%2BW3R4iZu_CjyZFN2HAcZON%
> 3Dma4LWgJ-d_Vx6F04BEXhy0nbQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/foss4gna_selection/CAF%2BW3R4iZu_CjyZFN2HAcZON%3Dma4LWgJ-d_Vx6F04BEXhy0nbQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180614/448b431a/attachment-0001.html>