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

Mon Jan 6 07:59:55 PST 2020

If I may add,

Jon's final point on the benefits of reinvestment of the money locally is incredibly important in regions where community volunteers are hard to come by and OSGeo doesn't have a previous long history.  In the case of our Calgary 2020 conference for example, we are tapping into several local organizations and their volunteers to ensure we have an LOC with the strongest experience.

To that end, it is critical that these organizations see the local benefit outlast the excitement of the one time event and ensure we are able to nurture the growth of a new and lasting OSGeo presence in western Canada. This is of benefit to all involved in my opinion as it can easily grow the membership of OSGeo as well as the following of FOSS4G internationally.

Brad - the other 2020 co-chair
________________________________
From: Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jonathan Neufeld <jneufeld at tecterra.com>
Sent: January 6, 2020 8:42 AM
To: Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org>; Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
Cc: Conference Dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Hi All,

I know I’m late the conversation, here are a few thoughts from a current FOSS4G co-chair.

In my opinion FOSS4G has now reached the point where it is a major yearly global event that comes with a planning cycle >1 year. This means it also comes with a major budget, and cash flow management challenges; for the Calgary event we will likely spend $700k-$1M total.

The bidding process to host FOSS4G comes with opposing pressures to

  1.  Keep ticket prices as low as possible, boosting the openness and accessibility of the event
  2.  Make as much profit as possible, boosting the amount returned to OSGeo

Other commenters have mentioned this, and I would agree that sorting out which is the highest priority would provide a clear signal to bidders and LOCs on how to run their events. Does OSGeo want an event that maximizes accessibility, or profit? Neither is a wrong choice, however each choice will lead to a different type of event. LOCs can’t be expected to win the bid on low price, and then return a huge profit to OSGeo. From the conversation so far I would suggest that profitability is a higher interest that accessibility, especially if OSGeo depends on the surplus each year to fund operations.

The continuity from year to year and LOC to LOC is as good as it can be. Vasile and the BLOC did a great job handing off the 2019 event to the 2020 team, especially whilst in the midst of trying to run the event! We will do our best to pass things on to 2021, however, it’s worth recognizing that there is a lot of knowledge that gets lost through these types of transfers.

I strongly second Darrell’s suggestion below that OSGeo invest in bringing on a FOSS4G Director in a paid capacity to oversee the hosting and production of large-scale FOSS4G events. The benefits would be enormous:

  *   Relationships with sponsors could be maintained from year to year, nurtured to provide growth, and create long-lasting partnerships.
     *   This would greatly reduce the anxiety of fundraising by LOCs who only receive a list of emails, and amounts from previous chairs
     *   The chair of the local committees would still be responsible for bringing in new, local, support to add to the pot
  *   Deep understanding of the event, and avoidance of reinvention
     *   As much as possible the LOCs try to use what was done in previous years and avoid re-solving problems that have already been tackled. However, there are always experiential learnings that come with hosting events, and these are hard to pass on. Having an individual with multiple experiences in hosting and running large scale events from year to year would ensure that all of the knowledge is maintained and brought forward into each event.
  *   Long term vision
     *   Event chairs are rightfully focused on delivering a successful event, and don’t think much beyond that
     *   I think FOSS4G could benefit from having someone who is thinking on a multi-year timescale about the event, it’s growth, impact, and feasibility; as well as the goals for hosting it in different regions, with different focuses.
     *   I know that the Conference Committee does this, but with all due respect, it’s from a hands-off perspective.
     *   A paid individual could bring a long term vision to the operations of the event, making it easier to host, and more successful in the long run.

I would also suggest that OSGeo create a formal hosting agreement between itself and the LOC. This document provides clarity and certainty about roles, rights, and expectations of both parties. It’s a little nerve-wracking taking on a $1M/12moth project without this! The percentage to be returned to OSGeo would be clearly described in the document and signed by all parties.

Finally, I’ll provide my suggestion on a percentage: I think that 50/50 is fair split. Given the amount of effort, and risk, required to produce a $1M event asking LOCs to send more than half of the proceeds back to OSGeo seems unfair. As volunteers LOCs we’re not in it for the money, but it is a huge benefit to be able to reinvest that money locally.

Regards,

Jon

From: Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> On Behalf Of Darrell Fuhriman
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
Cc: Conference Dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

I might flip Eli’s formulation a bit — say 90% to OSGeo on the first $100k, then 50/50 thereafter, or perhaps some “bonus structure”. If the primary goal is to help OSGeo, then the incentive structure should reflect that.

As far as cost, it’s actually pretty hard to bring the cost down for a conference in the 1000-attendee size. The biggest knobs you have to turn are catering costs (i.e. don’t have food) and/or to bring in more sponsorship to subside the cost.

For most attendees, the cost of travel is the bulk of the cost of attending. So while it certainly can make a difference at the margins, I’m not sure it’s the driving factor for most people. (This would actually be an excellent question to survey past and prospective attendees — having data around this would really help our decision-making.)

FWIW, I know I’m often the lone voice in the wilderness on the topic, but this is a good case for investing in an individual, even if part time, to help find sponsorship dollars. It’s a very specific skillset, one which the LOCs may often not have, and one that would really benefit from building and maintaining long-term relationships in a way the current model of throwing all new people in the mix every year doesn’t.

More sponsorship money = more money for OSGeo and cheaper costs for attendees.

Darrell

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

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/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20200106/83a79e0d/attachment-0001.html>