[OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus
Till Adams
till.adams at fossgis.de
Fri Jan 3 04:24:18 PST 2020
Hi all,
great to see such a fruitful discussion ;-).
I like the idea from Eli, maybe we should seperate between with/without
seed money here.
Till
Am 03.01.20 um 12:27 schrieb Steven Feldman:
> Great suggestion
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places - mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
>
>> On 2 Jan 2020, at 15:14, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>> 0.
>>>> 0.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> <http://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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20200103/1a8eced1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list