[OSGeo Oceania] Board - sharing budget doc

Tue Aug 20 22:50:25 PDT 2019

Hi Edoardo,

The use of a PCO and having a strong volunteer ethos are *not* mutually exclusive.

Both can coexist quite happily as has been proven at many FOSS4G events.

In the end this is really a decision for the team who puts together a letter of intent. 

Cheers,

Bruce

> On 21 Aug 2019, at 14:21, Edoardo Neerhut <ed at mapillary.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 for sharing the budget. 
> I'll read up on the PCO idea, but for me the appeal of the FOSS4G and SotM community and conferences has been the strong volunteer ethos which I think has a big impact in shaping the dynamic of the conference.
> 
> I'm not concerned about us getting competitive pricing for catering services or other services listed in the budget. It might even work in our favour as we can be clear about the maximum we have been paying per head.
> 
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:12, Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> My comments on the use of a PCO or not relate equally to a regional, or a global event.
> 
> I discuss this in a bit more depth in my recent related post ’To PCO or not':
> 
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/2019-August/002093.html <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/2019-August/002093.html>
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
>> On 21 Aug 2019, at 03:27, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com <mailto:gregory.lauer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I suspect that Bruce's comment's re PCO is more towards the idea of OSGEO OCEANIA running a global FOSS4G conference as opposed to the regional conference. I do agree with Daniels comment in respect to the regional conferences and experience to date has shown that it can be volunteer led, but at some time in the future as the conferences grow, outside assistance may be needed, but will probably be more of a hybrid model.
>> 
>> In terms of budgets I am of the opinion that only key financial items such as income (total tickets/sponsors) and expenses (totals/summary) should be made publicly available. I do not agree that the complete budget should be public. The concept of IP is one consideration (and I say that with some trepidation in an Open Source/Data community). There can be a multitude of reasons why we may not want to make specifics available. One example could be a catering company that sees last years budget and offers the same pricing for next conference, as opposed to the most competitive pricing. It may be that a sponsor does not want others to know the amount they have sponsored. There are plenty of other examples.
>> 
>> My concern is more broadly around competition for funding. Funding is scarce and we will find ourselves in competitive funding situations at some point in the future and we need to be mindful of how our competition (i.e. other organisations) may use public information for there benefit. 
>> 
>> All though we are (and always will be) a community led organisation, and accountable to our membership, we also need to mindful of the commercial imperatives, to ensure the long term availability of the organisation.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:16 PM Daniel Silk <dwsilk at gmail.com <mailto:dwsilk at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Bruce
>> 
>> Surely not a certainty that a PCO reduces the event risk - engaging a company would create a lot of new risks:
>>  - will they meet the standard we've set?
>>  - will they know how to engage with the community to ensure that it still feels like a community run event and not a copy+paste corporate conference?
>>  - will we have to raise prices and cut back on things like our Good Mojo program in order to mitigate the extra expense?
>>  - we would absolutely need to meet sponsorship and registration targets, rather than enjoying some elasticity because of our lean expenses
>> 
>> There has certainly been a lot of volunteer effort going into these events but that's an absolutely fantastic aspect to them. It's a time consuming experience but a rewarding one. I hope that all of the organisations that have been so willing to support this effort will also (continue) to provide in-kind employee time so that it's less dependent on volunteer time.
>> 
>> Regardless, I don't understand why we would struggle to obtain a competitive quote from a PCO if we released this information.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Daniel
>> Conference Chair - FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:47 PM Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> For FOSS4G-2009 we used a Professional Conference Organising (PCO) company to help us put the event together.
>> 
>> This proved to be very helpful to the LOC in getting the event organised and run smoothly.
>> 
>> I would recommend this approach in future events as it reduces the event risk and the LOC volunteer load considerably.
>> 
>> There are of course costs involved...
>> 
>> I don’t know if this factor is included in the information that you have below.
>> 
>> I do know that PCO treat their budgets as intellectual property that must be protected. Therefore, this is a situation where we need to be careful with what is made public.
>> 
>> In addition, if PCO costs are not included in the budget info below, making the budget public may also be detrimental to us obtaining a suitable competitive quote should we decide to use a PCO later.
>> 
>> Therefore, I recommend not making this specific information publicly available.
>> 
>> By all means use a process that makes the budget info available to registered potential bidders via other means.
>> 
>> My 2c.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Aug 2019, at 17:18, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com <mailto:johnwbryant at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi OO board,
>>> 
>>> I think it would be helpful for those considering a proposal for 2020 to have access to the 2018 budget. I've prepared a redacted version that removes transaction data, and any specific references to people or companies, in the interest of privacy. But I still think it contains a wealth of useful information to future event organisers.
>>> 
>>> You can see this version here (login required): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vBpexZ4wTbpmQMENEePEj6SYWjqPbfNxOE_5EBAK9HY <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vBpexZ4wTbpmQMENEePEj6SYWjqPbfNxOE_5EBAK9HY>
>>> 
>>> Rather than provide it privately to those who ask, I'd rather open it up to the public... I see this as 1) more fair & transparent, and 2) significantly easier to manage. Do you see any issues with sharing this document with the public?
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> John
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20190821/e0833351/attachment.html>