[OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus
michael terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
Thu Jan 2 14:48:39 PST 2020
I can only speak for, and go as far back as Boston, but this is what
happened in 2017:
1. We requested, and received seed funding.
2. We requested retaining up to 20% of the surplus, or $25,000, which
ever was lower, in our proposal. And, during the RPF we received and
answered questions about this. In the end, we generated a large surplus and
retained $25,000 and OSGeo had in excess of 80% of the surplus (but I don't
have the precise number/percentage handy, but it was well over >$100k).
3. In our proposal we requested the "larger than usual" amount of the
surplus with our ambitions being to start an OSGeo chapter. We were not
100% sure what our chapter would entail at that point. Would it be a
"Boston Chapter"? A Northeast USA Chapter? Or, in the end, what was finally
selected, and have founded through Guido's efforts, a* US Chapter
<https://osgeo.us/>. *This chapter is still in its nascent stage, but it
has formed and has distributed funds to US-based events that showcase
geospatial open source technology.
On a personal note, I support the notion of some events retaining a larger
proportion of a conference surplus (i.e., above 15%) if they have a clear
aim of what those funds would be used for, and that they recognize the
importance of returning the majority, or at least an equal proportion, of
the surplus to OSGeo. It can be a good thing to have the LOC be financially
motivated to deliver a strong surplus.
I also support the notion of being as clear as possible with our guidelines
and expectations in *all relevant places *(e.g., website, Wiki, RFP, etc.).
My $.02...
mt
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:36 PM Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Eli/Steven:
>
> Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to
> the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local
> OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>
>> If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of
>> the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after. OSGeo already has a host
>> of great programs and ways to spend the money. It also is the reason that
>> FOSS4G happens. (It also is how OSGeo exists).
>>
>> I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why
>> I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount
>> for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations
>>> for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to
>>> strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP
>>> document later this year.
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>>
>>> Unusual maps in strange places - mappery.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>>> newsletter
>>>
>>> On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Steven,
>>>
>>> thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)
>>>
>>> Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>>>
>>> In the RfP document it says (my italics):
>>>
>>> "Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and
>>> operated to deliver a surplus over costs. *Part of the surplus
>>> will be donated to OSGeo.*
>>>
>>> Seed Funding
>>>
>>> OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses
>>> and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to
>>> cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events
>>> (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo
>>> board representative).
>>>
>>> If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that
>>> in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a
>>> lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle
>>> Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be
>>> consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances
>>>
>>> *If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo,
>>> they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to
>>> OSGeo.*
>>>
>>> Travel Grant
>>>
>>> OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant
>>> Programme (see
>>> https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/ ),
>>> the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding
>>> through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.
>>>
>>> Video
>>>
>>> OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the
>>> conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo
>>> requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation
>>> and distribution of the conference surplus."
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>>
>>> Unusual maps in strange places - mappery.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>>> newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear conference committee,
>>>
>>> you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of
>>> income
>>> of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
>>> binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential
>>> surplus of
>>> a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
>>> transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for
>>> seed
>>> money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
>>> about that during the RfP).
>>>
>>> On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
>>> regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says,
>>> that
>>> if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an
>>> organisation
>>> expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to
>>> OSGeo.
>>> This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
>>> still marked as "draft" [1].
>>>
>>> So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
>>> future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
>>> OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should
>>> need
>>> to define a rule here also.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
--
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20200102/e62f1849/attachment.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list