<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Cameron,<br>
<br>
Regarding point 3:<br>
<ul>
<li>Visibility is tied to sponsorship. Thanks again Peter
clarifying that OSGeo gets a free booth. This wasn't mentioned
in the RFP but it shouldn't be a problem.<br>
</li>
<li>In terms of the presentations, the program committee decides
on which talks get accepted. The committee operates at arm's
length from various influences such as sponsorship for
example.<br>
</li>
<li>For these reasons, I think 3 is clearly orthogonal to
contrasting the proposals at hand.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
With regards to points 2 & 4:<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, nowhere in the RFP does it state all profit
should go to OSGeo. The only discussion of profit in the
Evaluation criteria says "Does the conservative budget estimate
result in a reasonable profit." Our committee's budget for
Washington D.C. provides this and planned payments comparable to
past FOSS4G events.<br>
<br>
Some numbers from the budget approved for our bid:<br>
For 900 attendees, a payment of <b>$50K</b> to OSGeo leaves <b>$16.6K.</b><br>
For 1K attendees, a payment of <b>$75K</b> to OSGeo leaves <b>$11K</b>.<br>
<br>
For reference, this is what the posted OSGeo budgets say about
past payments from FOSS4G:<br>
<br>
Nottingham (2013), TBD<br>
<br>
Beijing (2012), <b>$0</b> due to cancellation.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Denver (2011), <b>$100K</b> total spread across fiscal 2011 and
2012:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/images/8/83/OSGeo-Budget-2012-Final-20120205.pdf">http://wiki.osgeo.org/images/8/83/OSGeo-Budget-2012-Final-20120205.pdf</a><br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2011">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2011</a><br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<br>
Barcelona (2010), <b>$27K</b>:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2010">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2010</a><br>
<br>
Sydney (2009), <b>$12K</b>:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2009">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2009</a><br>
<br>
South Africa (2008), <b>$10K</b><br>
As per Gavin Fleming. Each organization received a 33% share of
profit including OSGeo.<br>
<br>
Victoria (2007), <b>$100K</b><br>
As per Dave Patton.<br>
<br>
We don't have numbers for Lausanne at the moment.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 07/06/2013 06:13 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D896A5.7020809@gmail.com" type="cite">On
07/07/13 04:55, Paul Ramsey wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Andrew
Ross <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andrew.ross@eclipse.org"><andrew.ross@eclipse.org></a> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I've always wondered how this worked for
past events as it seemed quite
<br>
secretive. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in the community in
this regard.
<br>
</blockquote>
With the exception of South Africa, in which a joint agreement
was
<br>
arranged ahead to time to share with GISSA, all the other "OSGeo
era"
<br>
(2007+) FOSS4G events have returned all profits to OSGeo. The
profit
<br>
"targets" in the RFP are to make explicit that we don't
necessarily
<br>
want to-the-bone break-even budgets, we want budgets that will,
under
<br>
reasonable assumptions, return revenue to the organization. They
are
<br>
not the maximum or average profit we want, they are the minimum
<br>
planning threshold. The organization still expects to receive
the full
<br>
profits of the event, RFP numbers notwithstanding.
<br>
<br>
Though a familiar industry group (GITA) helped organize FOSS4G
2011,
<br>
they did so as a standard conference organizing organization:
their
<br>
fee structure was known ahead of time and was in the budget from
the
<br>
start. That they also knew our industry as well as event
organizing
<br>
was a handy bonus, but not germane to the financial
arrangements.
<br>
<br>
I would expect that if the Eclipse foundation is looking for a
profit
<br>
sharing arrangement like GISSA, it should be included in the
proposal
<br>
with some precision (X%), and if they are going to act, like
GITA, as
<br>
an organizer, their fee schedule should be in the budget.
<br>
<br>
P.
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Paul, that is great background. So bridging between Paul's
background and Eclipse's involvement in the Washington proposal.
<br>
<br>
1. Eclipse is acting as a PCO, and have factored staff costs into
the budget (as GITA). Fee for service. All good, but no
justification for profit sharing.
<br>
<br>
2. Eclipse is offering a depth of experience with Open Source
conferences, including attracting sponsors. Profit sharing could
be a form of payment in this regard, but I would expect an offset
reduction in fixed price labour costs.
<br>
<br>
3. Of note, FOSS4G will offer significant marketing value to the
Eclipse Foundation. I assume the Eclipse Foundation intending to
include logos in the program, have a presentation, have signage at
the event? What would that equate to as a sponsor of the event?
<br>
<br>
4. The Eclipse Foundation is offering OSGeo insurance against loss
at the FOSS4G event, where key risk items are loss of key
personnel, poor management, low attendance, and low sponsorship.
<br>
* Loss of key personnel, and risk of poor management has been
mitigated in both proposals through the identification of strong
teams.
<br>
* Risk of low attendance under normal circumstances is relatively
low, as we already know the US region can attract ~ 900 delegates.
<br>
* Risk of low attendance due to unforeseen events (such as the
GFC, or 9/11) is unlikely but can have a large impact. Is
insurance being taken out for these sort of eventualities?
<br>
* Risk of low sponsorship is a definite possibility, mitigated by
Eclipse's experience attracting such sponsorship in the past.
<br>
<br>
What is the risk mitigation worth? I'd love to see metrics for the
items above applied to justify a percentage.
<br>
My gut feeling is it is worth 10% of the profit. I'd entertain 20%
of the profit. I feel that 50% of the profit is ripping OSGeo off.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>