[OSGeo-Conf] Firenze Full Proposal

Mon May 3 13:00:40 PDT 2021

Hi Eli, Steven, All,

I think Steven asking for guidance from the Board is appropriate in this
instance. @Till Adams <tilladams at gmail.com> I'm sure can help us in this
regard and propose that further parameterisation around what they're
looking for/what they're willing to do would be useful here.

To offer a perhaps unwelcome aside, the support that FOSS4G in Dar received
from the board was scarcer than the dodo, in-part because 1. we didn't
explicitly ask for it and the board seemed to be quite uncoordinated on the
few occasions when I interfaced with it; and, 2. the DLOC developed a
strong shared vision on what we wanted to achieve. In certain areas, this
was so vastly different from the mould the lack of 'supervision' was
beneficial as we were able to develop a conference that uniquely
incorporated the local context. My instinct and counsel is shared through
this perspective and therefore should be taken on board, or not,
accordingly.

I really just want to (re)iterate my view that a LOC should interpret their
FOSS4G in the best way possible, and demarcate the very fuzzy boundary of
the 'independence - supervised continuum' that any FOSS4G chair has in
their relationship with the OSGeo board. Simply, if we had followed
Boston's template going into planning Dar es Salaam, we would not have had
the same impact that emanated from the conference; this isn't to say that
Dar was 'better' than Boston, it wasn't by any means. Its success was
achieved by setting an ambitious vision that guides the outcomes of the
ensuing conference, not through focusing purely on turning a profit for
OSGeo. I believe that the strength of vision comes from the LOC - not the
board. While that is less my 2 cents, and more like $50 of thoughts, I
leave this point for now.

Cheers,

Mark

On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 15:00, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:03 AM Mark Iliffe <markiliffe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Luca,
>>
>> Thanks for your answers. I have no further questions - but I wish to urge
>> that special attention is paid to ensure that all those that wish to
>> participate in FOSS4G are given the opportunity to do so. Appreciate that
>> there is a perceptible driver to be cost-efficient - however, for many
>> delegates, a few euros here or there doesn't make much of a difference, but
>> for those with not a lot, it is those euros that can transform everything.
>> I would strongly urge that FOSS4G ticket prices are not a race to the
>> bottom, instead are considered as a mechanism that can bring value to the
>> entire OSGeo ecosystem. Your approach of leaning into the OSGeo to
>> underwrite your FOSS4G is IMHO the correct one given our circumstances -
>> but unless there is a necessity to raise money for OSGeo (which I don't
>> think there is... at least not more than 'usual'), my counsel would be to
>> reduce the potential profit back into OSGeo's coffers to invest within the
>> community.
>>
>
> As you can see here,
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Finance_Operational_Notes#Annual_proportions_2007-2017,
> from 2010-2017* OSGeo has been funded almost exclusively from FOSS4G.  The
> cancelation of 2020 Calgary not only did not raise money in a "North
> American" year, it also lost substantial money.  2021 Buenos Aires as an
> "Other Regions" and virtual is a bit of a wildcard which we won't know the
> financial results of until later.  FOSS4G LOCs often ask for ~$100,000
> advances and sometimes there is more than one advance out at a time.
>
> Steven's suggestion that the Conference Committee should seek guidance
> from the OSGeo Treasurer and Board on the level of surplus that they are
> seeking in 2022 is a good idea.  Are there other aspects of guidance that
> we're looking for in those realms?
>
> *Tracking OSGeo/FOSS4G finances 2018-present might be useful too.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>>
>> May the FOSS be with you!! Even if the members of this committee aren't
>> in your FLOC meetings, know that we're behind you every step of the way :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 15:02, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Luca
>>>
>>> Thanks for your detailed and clear proposal
>>>
>>> I have 3 questions for you:
>>>
>>>    1. Can you provide a schedule of how the costs of a cancellation of
>>>    a physical event (forced by government covid restrictions) increase month
>>>    by month as you get closer to the event?
>>>    2. You have asked for seed funding of €60,000 plus a further
>>>    guarantee of €25,000. Are you certain that €85,000 is the maximum possible
>>>    loss?
>>>    3. What organisation will OSGeo be contacting with?
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt the FOSS be with you
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> +44 (0) 7958 924101
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 1 May 2021, at 17:33, Luca Delucchi <lucadeluge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 00:51, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Luca, thanks so much for this proposal. I have only a couple questions /
>>> clarifications:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Paul,
>>>
>>> our answer are inline
>>>
>>> - The Gala is pencilled in as a 0EUR price (ie, it is included in the
>>> registration).
>>>
>>>  - Will you include a price for delegates bringing a guest?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Gala dinner is included in the registration fees.  Regarding
>>> guests, we estimate the price for Gala dinner ticket around 75 € for
>>> each person.
>>>
>>>  - Those who choose not to attend will end up cross-subsidizing those
>>> who do, are you OK with that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are still talking about the gala dinner, the costs of the
>>> people who will not attend will still have to be covered. We might
>>> even think about putting the gala dinner as an external cost to the
>>> registration. In the last few years we have seen that the gala dinner
>>> has always been included in the registration and we have followed this
>>> route.
>>>
>>> - The "OSGeo % Seed Funding" number at the bottom of the budget is quite
>>> sensitive to the number of projected attendees, which I find odd. I'd
>>> expect it to be pretty fixed, and largely keyed to expense items that are
>>> quite fixed and require large deposits up front (convention space, A/V
>>> suppliers). What does that number come from?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There has been a misunderstanding the line "OSGeo % Seed Funding" is
>>> actually "OSGeo % for Seed Funding" and represents the percentage of
>>> surplus OSGeo should obtain. The seed funding required is 60000 € in
>>> three tranches as written in the proposal, beyond an additional
>>> guarantee against losses of 25.000 Euro making a total exposure of up
>>> to 85.000 Euro for OSGeo.  In the budget the seed funding has not been
>>> considered.
>>>
>>> - The food prices are ... very reasonable? Are those numbers (25EUR
>>> lunch, etc) validated with the organizers, do they really represent the
>>> cost of catering in the venue? Venues sometimes have quite expensive and
>>> exclusive catering arrangements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, all the prices are coming from quotations and validated by
>>> venue’s people and PCO.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> regards
>>> Luca
>>>
>>> www.lucadelu.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20210503/3d2b7c9b/attachment-0001.html>