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

Fri Jan 3 07:15:57 PST 2020

We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the 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 3 Jan 2020, at 14:40, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:34 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <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
>>>> 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 <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/ <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/bddd919a/attachment-0001.html>