[OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Fri Jan 3 06:40:09 PST 2020

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:34 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Back in 2012 we proposed a small share for the UK local chapter for the
> Nottingham event -  we also made some small donations to some open source
> projects that we had used to run the conference. The funding that OSGeo:UK
> received has enabled us to run several UK FOSS4G events, sponsor QGIS user
> group events and PostGIS days and  get to a point where we are self
> sustaining and surpluses from our events can be reinvested in sponsoring
> code sprints and supporting OSGeo projects relevant to our UK members
>
> I think it has become the norm since 2013 for some of the surplus to go to
> the local chapter - when Eli refers to the LOC I think he meant the local
> chapter not the organising committee?
>

Yes, the local chapter that works on future OSGeo events in that
region/etc.  I think of the LOC as being that chapter/future.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:

> 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.
>

Yes, makes sense but even in the case of no seed funding, I’m still in
favor of the majority coming back to OSGeo.  This is how OSGeo exists
(financially).

Eli

> ______
> 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 19:35, 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20200103/6982c011/attachment-0001.html>