[OSGeo-Conf] Firenze Full Proposal
Till Adams
till.adams at fossgis.de
Thu May 6 04:51:43 PDT 2021
Hi Mark,
for sure I can help here. I will have a deeper look on this by tomorrow
(I was quite busy the past days).
Till
Am 03.05.21 um 22:00 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
> Hi Eli, Steven, All,
>
> I think Steven asking for guidance from the Board is appropriate in
> this instance. @Till Adams <mailto: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
> <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:03 AM Mark Iliffe <markiliffe at gmail.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lucadeluge at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 00:51, Paul Ramsey
>> <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
>> <mailto: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 <http://www.lucadelu.org>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210506/863cac1a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list