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

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Fri Jan 3 10:02:16 PST 2020 

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:15 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think that has generally been clear.  If it isn’t, we should further
clarify the rfp.


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

That was an off the cuff suggestion.  I’d like to hear thoughtful
suggestions of what the correct amount is to recognize the work and effort
of the local chapter and to properly fund OSGeo activities in that region
for a long time (or in the case of startup funds that sustain themselves,
perpetuity).

Once we come up with some numbers for that, we can consider different
priority/stepping/etc formulas of how to get there.

Leaving local funds for local OSGeo activities is one of the best ways to
help grow OSGeo to new areas and for existing areas to thrive.



> 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.
>

I’ve not yet seen a proposal that does both low cost of conference passes
and substantial surplus returns.  I’m open to trying one that does.

I see the TGP (a substantial program run very well by you and others) as
partly filling the needs of low cost conference tickets.  Due to the large
scale of the TGP this seems to be doing okay.  I see local and regional
events really filling the low cost conference pass need.


Eli


> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  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> 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/b3741158/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list