[OSGeo-Conf] Mailchimp

Fri May 15 13:59:56 PDT 2020

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:53 PM Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>
> Stupid question maybe, but why does the LOC have to pay for this? Why is it not covered by OSGeo?

No good reason, just that's the way it has always been done.  My
initial side comment was questioning if we want to re-evaluate that
(which is probably a different thread rather than this thread about
what to do with Mailchimp for the next # months). It is not just
Mailchimp, the whole conference is more or less entirely completed
from scratch by the LOC with very little institutional continuity from
year to year.

I'll also point out that depending on how finances are configured,
sometimes OSGeo money and LOC money are the same thing and the
"difference" is mostly fictional.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Best regards,
>
> Bart
>
> On 15-05-2020 22:17, Malena Libman wrote:
>
> Thank for your answer Eli.
>
> I think some of my answers are not as perfect in english as a thought they where.
>
> I didn't mean we wanted to start to pay whenever we want, it's just that with no income for at least 4 months and the need to relieve the CLOC of the MailChimp expense now (the next charge is may 19th), we don't have the money yet to cover this.
>
> As for the final comment, I also meant to agree with you, not to say that the CC should do any of our work.
>
> Malena
>
>
>
> El vie., 15 may. 2020 a las 17:10, Eli Adam (<eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>) escribió:
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM Malena Libman <malena.libman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > For the FOSS4G BALOC, the issue right now is that we don't have the budget to support the mailchimp billing while we are not using it.
>>
>> My question was more of, "When does BALOC want to send messages?"  And
>> not, "When does BALOC want to start paying for the service?"  Many
>> years, the next LOC is very ready to start sending messages the
>> day/week after the prior FOSS4G and sometimes (with careful
>> coordination) before the prior event.  If BALOC wants to start sending
>> messages in September (four months from now), we may want to just
>> leave it as is, even if BALOC doesn't yet take over payment of it.
>>
>> >
>> > We are working on locking the exact dates, but as long as we don't launch the CFP or the ticket sales, we don't need the mailing platform and it's imperative we reduce expenses considering the pandemic situation world wide and the precarious future of the conference.
>> >
>> > Thanks Steven for the suggestion on archive method, maybe that's the best way to change the billing plan without downloading information to avoid the concerns that Mark mentions or losing important data.
>> >
>> > As Eli mentioned, it would be good for us (as LOC) to know exactly which tasks are managed by the committee and which we need to take care of.
>>
>> I think the typical approach is that the LOC does almost 100% of
>> everything and the Conference Committee does very little beyond the
>> initial selection and being available for guidance or advice or if
>> issues need input.  My (not directly related to this thread) comment
>> was about whether we would ever want to reconsider that and establish
>> some long term continuity that does some of the routine conference
>> logistics.  That was mere commentary on my part.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Malena
>> >
>> > El vie., 15 may. 2020 a las 16:29, Eli Adam (<eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>) escribió:
>> >>
>> >> I have some hesitancy to ever be in the situation of "we can't send
>> >> emails to our list" which could happen if we plan to migrate later (or
>> >> even, unarchive  later).  If there is some reliable method to increase
>> >> and decrease expense that doesn't conflict with other uses of that
>> >> function, that might be worthwhile if some individual wants to
>> >> reliably take that on.  Do we know when FOSS4G 2021 wants to start
>> >> sending messages?
>> >>
>> >> I'm also open to evaluating options like https://phplist.com/pricing
>> >> if it were found to be equivalent (or better) and would support open
>> >> source software while doing it.  Generally, I think there is some
>> >> value to stability in things like this and we shouldn't be changing
>> >> too frequently.  Any change should be done in coordination with a LOC
>> >> (or if it were to be part of a more centrally managed service by the
>> >> Conference Committee).
>> >>
>> >> For straight cost, +1 to what Darrell and Mark said.  This cost is
>> >> minor in the big picture.  Generally sysadmin time is one of the more
>> >> scarce resources around OSGeo and I think that is best reserved for
>> >> other functions that can't easily be done otherwise/elsewhere.  We
>> >> would need to talk to SAC before shifting responsibility of FOSS4G
>> >> emails going through correctly on tight timelines to them.
>> >>
>> >> More generally, evaluating which tasks are managed centrally by the
>> >> Conference Committee and which are shuffled from LOC to LOC might be
>> >> worth a larger conversation (maybe on some other thread).
>> >>
>> >> Best regards, Eli
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:34 AM Darrell fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > My general feeling on these things is that it’s worth the money to not put any more burden on volunteers than is necessary — especially if that burden can be easily outsourced for what is frankly a pretty small charge in the grand scheme of things.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you can revert to free and then upgrade as necessary, that seems like an excellent investment to me.
>> >> >
>> >> > Darrell
>> >> >
>> >> > > On May 15, 2020, at 08:52, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Dear Conference Committee,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We just had a meeting with the Calgary team to give us the credentials
>> >> > > of the shared accounts by all LOCs.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We have a question regarding MailChimp. We understand this is an
>> >> > > interesting tool that has been widely used in the past. Right now it
>> >> > > has a cost of 93€/month.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Considering we are not going to widely use it in the next few months,
>> >> > > we are going to export all the contacts to convert it to a free plan
>> >> > > for the time being and then decide at a later stage what to do with
>> >> > > it. Possibly reimport all the contacts and pay again, if there is no
>> >> > > better alternative.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Can the Conference Committee discuss to have some FOSS version of
>> >> > > this, like PHPList (https://github.com/phpList/phplist3 ), on OSGeo
>> >> > > servers that will allow us to do the same without depending on an
>> >> > > external provider?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheers,
>> >> > > María.
>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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