[FOSS4G-Oceania] * Important - budget update *

[John Bryant]

*TL;DR: based on conservative assumptions, in a 200 attendee projected
budget, we are currently looking at a $30k+ surplus.*

Hi team,

As we push towards the event (80 days to go!), I want to provide an update
on our financial position, as I think it will be important to have this in
the front of our minds. There will be some financial decisions to make in
the upcoming weeks, and we need to have this as context for this decision
making.

To date, we've operated with a fairly lean approach, budgeting
conservatively, and making only modest adjustments to our budget. In our
agreement with SSSI, we committed to aim for a surplus of $3k-$10k, and in
fact have consistently guided our budget to a surplus more in the $15k-$20k
range, to accommodate our uncertainty.

Despite this constraint, we've done a great job of planning an exciting &
interesting event, and our success on this front can be measured in part by
our significant over achievement in the sponsorship area, and the high
probability that we'll significantly exceed our target of 150 attendees.
So, good job, us!

But my point here, rather than to congratulate, is to raise awareness that *we
are currently sitting on a much larger than expected surplus*. I wanted to
understand this surplus better, so I set up a new 200 attendee scenario in
our budget worksheet
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14yHWdvEPxshBSBgxjc4vWgJlg0Svk8Qg0G-D3kF-siM/edit#gid=1274394515>.
If there are any doubts whether we can reach 200, keep in mind we're
already over 125 regos sold or committed, 11 weeks out, without even
announcing a program or going into a heavy promotion phase.

This scenario is based on what I consider to be realistic & conservative
assumptions (*listed in the worksheet, I'll repeat them here*). I don't
want to prejudice our future discussions by including specifics like TGP &
videorecording in these assumptions, we need to discuss these in a separate
thread, but I include them as examples of significant expenditures we could
add to our budget, and still have a large surplus.

*Assumptions for 200 scenario:*
200 conf regos
150 half day workshop regos
120 dinner tickets
CC tickets won't be taken up as much as expected
increase student regos
no additional sponsorship
increase to TGP expense
increase to keynote travel expense
increase to paid staff expense
include $5000 for swag
include $4000 for video recording

Even with all of these assumptions, which I consider to be generally erring
on the side of caution, *we are looking at a $30k+ surplus*, which is
large. See the budget worksheet
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14yHWdvEPxshBSBgxjc4vWgJlg0Svk8Qg0G-D3kF-siM/edit#gid=1274394515>
for the detailed scenario (*extra scrutiny would be very welcome*).

Recall that part of our partnership agreement with SSSI is that we share
50% of the surplus with them, so at present we don't have the option of
simply retaining the full surplus for future years. However, I hope we can
open a discussion with SSSI and see if there is appetite for investing part
of any unexpected windfall into future events. But clearly, we need to
honour the agreement we have in place, and respect our partner's wishes on
how they wish to proceed on this front.

So, as we go forward over the next 11 weeks and careen to the finish line,
I suggest we need to keep this budget surplus in mind. We've had many
discussions where we've opted out of doing things because we haven't felt
like we could justify the cost, but I argue at this point that we need to
adjust our thinking a bit on this front. The money is coming from the
community (sponsors and attendees), and I feel we owe it to the community
to make wise decisions on how we spend this money, while ensuring the best
event possible. This doesn't mean we start spending like sailors, of course
(no offense to sailors!), but I suggest we have latitude to spend some
money on things that will benefit the community and the event.

I suggest we don't raise specific motions on expenditure in this thread,
rather if there are specific motions arising, they should be raised in
separate threads.

Thoughts?

jb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/attachments/20180901/679b682b/attachment-0001.html>