[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Board task: finalize liability agreement with FOSS4G 2016 committee
Massimiliano Cannata
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Tue Oct 6 02:49:19 PDT 2015
Dear Suchith,
Dear all,
sorry to maybe be rough, but I would like to clearly express my vision of
the role of the BONN question and BOARD role to the whole community.
Maybe it is because i'm not native English speaker... but I'm working with
the Board as a team and this is why I sent my point of discussion.
*I have already stated that I'm going to approve the financial request from
BONN* so that they could proceed with the amazing work they are doing.
What I want is to pay attention on consequences of our decisions and our
transparent process of decision which in my opinion is NOT defined and
clear.
(next CHINA-like organizer may ask 100k euro more then 1 year in advance?
Why shall we decide of not giving the money? based on what rules or
principle?)
It may be a silly and tedious and unnecessary point of discussion for
someone but I believe the board role is to define rules and procedures that
make the participation to OSGeo at all level impartial, transparent, fair
and inclusive in the interest of OSGeo.
Also I gratefully thank the tireless work of conference committee and I
think it is great, really.
At the same time I feel that the board has the mandate (given by the
charter members who elect the members) to supervise and define strategies
and policies, not only to like or dislike a motion.
For this reason, I request that the OSGeo charter members express their
point of view on this topic (FOSS4G conferences) which I believe is
essential for our community:
- what is the maximum amount of money that could be asked for liability and
seed money?
- when is it possible to access to this resource? (before of the ending of
the previous conference, before of the budget report of the previous
conference?)
- shall this value be included in the proposal and be an element of
selection?
- shall the organizer earn money from the event? if yes, what percentage at
maximum?
- how OSGeo visibility shall be ensured and guaranteed?
and many many other question I think could be rised.
Some of these questions may already have an answer, some may not.
So why not to define the rules commonly in a discussion WORKING AS A TEAM
and not as an individuals?
THIS IS MY ONLY POINT AND AIM.
Best Regard,
Maxi
2015-10-06 10:54 GMT+02:00 Suchith Anand <Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk>:
> Dear all,
>
> I am just an ordinary OSGeo member (not a Board member), and had been
> following these discussions on this over some weeks. I understand that lot
> of our experienced volunteers in the conference committee have put their
> time and efforts going through the agreement for Bonn .As it is approved
> by the whole OSGeo Conference Committee, we should have full confidence in
> the decision. My humble request to all is let us all think of how we can
> support the Bonn LOC so that we can ensure a successful FOSS4G conference
> in 2016. Esp. with time critical decisions , i request the Board to work as
> a team and make this possible. Thank you all for the amazing work you all
> do for OSGeo Board.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Suchith
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on
> behalf of Jeff McKenna [jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 9:57 PM
> *To:* Massimiliano Cannata
> *Cc:* osgeo-board List
> *Subject:* Re: [Board] Board task: finalize liability agreement with
> FOSS4G 2016 committee
>
> Hi Maxi, all of your answers are in the original document link I
> provided. If no objections I will call a vote for this on Thursday. If
> you have objections, please meet with me on Thursday, I will work around
> your schedule. We need to get this in place for the 2016 committee.
>
> As for 2017 and beyond, we will use the same document as a start, but each
> year brings new players to the table.
>
> -Jeff
>
> On Oct 5, 2015 5:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff
> I'm not blocking anything.
> I just want that a discussion in the board happen. Did you call a vote?
> Maybe i've missed it. You ask for a comment and i did it. I just want a
> discussion and to understand what is the point of view of people.. not just
> +1 or -1. I have motivated several time my view of things but not many
> comment was raised.
>
> I talked with Till in Seoul and i'm not blocking him and Bonn.
>
> So what is the decison? Are we going to give 100k euro for all the coming
> events with 100K max liability? What is the % of revenue thay go back to
> osgeo? What are the obligations for organizers? Hosting the osgeo community
> meeting in the middle of the event with no other presentations or things
> going on? There is a maximum fee? Shall the conference pay for president
> flight and allowance?
>
> The document addressed this? This are to me the rules we need... and not
> just passing a motion and then the next year find out to be in the same
> situation....
>
> Just my 1 cent of swiss franc ;-)
>
> maxi
> Il 05/Ott/2015 22:12, "Jeff McKenna" <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> Hi Maxi,
>
> What do you mean by "rule", can you give an example? The document that
> was created by the OSGeo Conference Committee, the Bon LOC, and some board
> members (including myself) will be used for each upcoming FOSS4G event
> (that we have such a document now is a great thing). I am just wondering
> what you are missing, what is wrong with that document? Related to what I
> was saying about the issue with timing before the Seoul event, have your
> past concerns now been addressed? If yes, then maybe we can move forward
> (+1) with that document, and then the Board can create a "rule" in the next
> 10 months or so. I think many of us worked very hard behind the scenes to
> get that document in place, and I see no need to delay the 2016 planning
> because the board needs to make a rule. Because of this delay, the 2016
> committee is looking at other options, which include less profit returned
> to us, for own own event, so please let us not delay. Please explain
> yourself.
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> On 2015-10-05 3:56 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>
> Dear all
> What i would like is that the board defines a rule that is valid for
> Bonn but also for the next meetings.
> I think we cannot handle case by case without a defined rule that is
> impartial and guarantee transparence in decision making.
>
> What do you board members think about?
>
> Maxi
>
> Il 05/Ott/2015 19:24, "Jeff McKenna" <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> ha scritto:
>
> Hello Board members,
>
> This will be the first public task of the new Board, and may be the
> most important one we deal with all year. And yes, it is extremely
> time sensitive.
>
> Some background (instead of pointing to 5 different threads spanning
> as many different mailing lists):
>
> The FOSS4G Bonn local committee needs OSGeo to financially guarantee
> the event. The OSGeo Conference Committee worked very hard on
> producing an agreement, that passed many keen experienced eyes, both
> on the OSGeo side as well as on the Bonn committee side. This
> agreement was approved by the entire OSGeo Conference Committee and
> the Bonn local committee, and 8 of the 9 OSGeo Board members. One
> OSGeo Board member voted -1. The original agreement exists at:
>
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2016/financial_stuff/agreement_with_osgeo/Agreement-between-OSGeo-and-FOSSGISeV-2016.pdf
>
> As for past FOSS4G agreements, Seoul was the first time that the
> OSGeo Board had a direct signed agreement with the local committee,
> between Sanghee and myself, agreeing on such details as profit
> sharing; for all of the other FOSS4G events, those details were
> handled in the agreement between the professional conference
> organizing company (PCO). Steven Feldman compiled some details from
> some of the recent FOSS4G events, in a Google spreadsheet (I just
> sent each board member an invite to that document).
>
> At the time that this 2016 agreement was being initially proposed,
> it was before FOSS4G Seoul, and it was honestly a little tricky to
> be signing such a commitment before we knew the outcome of the
> FOSS4G Seoul event (like any event, we could have lost money). But
> now, I feel everything is more clear for the Board: FOSS4G Seoul was
> successful, the break-even point was 400 attendees, and we went over
> that to roughly 560 attendees. So OSGeo doesn't have to worry about
> that, and now we can financially guarantee the 2016 Bonn event, for
> 100,000 euros, as was originally proposed.
>
> I want to make sure that each Board member supports this, and I will
> personally do my best to meet privately with whoever has questions.
>
> Maxi, now that we are through FOSS4G Seoul, do you yourself have any
> concerns not handled now? If you do (or any Board member) I suggest
> that we meet through Google Hangout on this Thursday. Possible time:
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2015&month=10&day=8&hour=18&min=0&sec=0%2015.00UTC
> (sorry Venka/Sanghee that time is not do-able for you, but you can
> voice your opinions here or to me privately, sorry about this one
> meeting time)
>
> I'm getting many direct emails on how this is important for the 2016
> committee. We OSGeo must get this agreement passed. It is on next
> week's Board agenda, but I hope we can solve this this week. It
> will be a team effort.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
>
--
*Massimiliano Cannata*
Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
Responsabile settore Geomatica
Istituto scienze della Terra
Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
*www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20151006/5d1a428d/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list