[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

Thu Apr 1 22:14:45 PDT 2021

@Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> can we get confirmation that the Good
Mojo spend was actually $0. I agree that we should spend it how it was
intended, as doing otherwise undermines our ability to collect
interest/issue specific funds in future.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 23:57, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Re: Good Mojo* - when the board decides how to spend this fund, be
> conscious this money was collected from community contributors with the
> understanding it would be used to support
> diversity/accessibility/sustainability initiatives related to the
> conference. See the 2018 [1] and 2019 [2] conference websites to see how
> this was communicated to contributors at the time. I'm sure there's leeway
> to re-interpret how the funds can be used (eg. outside of the conference)
> but I believe it should be done very carefully, and communicated clearly to
> respect the contributors. I'm not sure microgrants would be an effective
> way to spend this money, without revising the microgrant guidelines to more
> specifically address diversity/accessibility/sustainability.
>
> *Re: conference* - I understand conference planning isn't very far along
> yet, but I urge OSGeo Oceania to take an active role in any sponsorship
> drive that might take place this year, and get started as early as
> possible. It makes more sense to me that sponsor relationships would be
> developed and nurtured over years, rather than handing them off to an LOC
> to start anew each year. Re: financial risk, a strong sponsorship drive
> seems to me the clearest path to mitigating that risk.
>
> *Re: a deficit of $25k* - if it means the 2018 & 2019 conference surplus
> funds are finally re-invested in the community, I'm all for it. My opinion
> is that the money is there to be spent, and if it's not replenished, so be
> it. This conference/organisation started without a cent to its name and
> made a big impact regardless. Community engagement is far more valuable
> than money sitting in the bank!
>
> [1] https://2018.foss4g-oceania.org/attend/good-mojo-program.html
> [2] https://2019.foss4g-oceania.org/sponsor
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 at 11:55, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Following on from the comments received so far...
>>
>> *Conference*
>>
>> We have not yet received a budget from the Conference Committee so it it
>> is difficult to allocate a budget. I suspect we just carried over the
>> proposed budget from last year. I am in agreement with JB's comments that
>> there is opportunity to gain sponsorship etc. but at this time this is not
>> in place. We do need an alternative source(s) of revenue. Sponsorship is
>> one, grants are another. All involve significant amount of effort on an
>> ongoing basis to continually engage with prospective entities. My
>> personal opinion is that we illustrate the worst case scenario, allowing
>> a certain degree of flexibility. Although the last conference nearly broke
>> even, every conference is a financial risk to OSGeo Oceania and I feel feel
>> the budget needs to reflect that. With the complications of Covid I feel we
>> still need to take a cautious approach for 21/22. Would welcome further
>> discussion on this as it is a major budget item.
>>
>> *Good Mojo*
>>
>> As I understand it (Alex feel free to chip in) we have ~$8000 'tagged' as
>> for Good Mojo. I am not sure why we have tagged it $0, but I suspect that
>> has to do with that Good Mojo Funds have been used to fund various
>> activities that fall under other budget activities (for example Women's
>> Breakfasts) So to be clear it is not missing. Maybe there is a better
>> way to illustrate this within the budget? We have budgeted for Outreach
>> and community support. Maybe make available some Good Mojo funds to this
>> or Microgrants etc.
>>
>> *Microgrants*
>>
>> Eli presented an update to the Board and if I understand correctly we
>> have 2 grants approved out of 7 applications (with 2 declined and 3
>> awaiting more information). Great to see the momentum growing. Yes early
>> days but agree that budget should be revised for this. Maybe the best
>> way to manage this is for the Microgrant Committee to submit a budget
>> request? Then this can be considered as part of the budget.
>>
>> *SIGs*
>>
>> We have proposed a budget allocation of $2,500 to each SIG. (This is
>> indicated in the 21/22 tab). As per Martin's comments I feel we should
>> provide 'seed' funding to the SIG's on an annual basis, until such time
>> that they are self-sufficient. The SIG's have been set up in such a way
>> that any spending is transparent and can be wholly managed by the SIG
>> committee. I would like us moving away from the Board having to authorise
>> minor expenditure for SIG's and have them manage directly. By making
>> available a pool of money to the SIG's the committees can mange in what
>> ever way they see fit.
>>
>> I feel the key issue for OSGeo Members is that we are predicting a
>> deficit of up to $25,000 in 21/22 and are we happy to support that? We
>> budgeted a similar deficit in 20/21 and it looks like an actual deficit of
>> $6,000.
>>
>> Please keep the comments and thoughts rolling in!
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On 3/27/2021 4:14:13 AM, Edoardo Neerhut <eneerhut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for fantastic feedback.
>>
>> *Conference*
>> I had similar thoughts on the conference to you John. From memory we
>> agreed to keep tabs on how conference plans develop over the next month or
>> so and incorporate that into conference expectations.
>>
>> *Good Mojo*
>> Keen to hear from Alex here. I have been shamefully ignorant to the Good
>> Mojo fund of late.
>>
>> *Microgrants*
>> I think it's reasonable to increase this given it will be the second
>> financial year of microgrants. This could be one we asterix and review
>> monthly before we finalise the budget and allocate a final figure. It'd be
>> great to see how current funds are used over the next couple of months.
>>
>> *SIGs*
>> If new SIGs emerge, couldn't they be covered with the funds Outreach and
>> Community support? That's what happened this financial year, and then the
>> SIGs can get dedicated funding once they're established.
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 22:14, Martin Tomko <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree here with John,
>>>
>>> I think we can be more optimistic than in the catastrophic plans we had
>>> mid last year, although I agree that being cautious is good.
>>>
>>> I would also like to see a further expansion of the local outreach and
>>> community support/SIGs and potentially supporting transaltion of local
>>> academic OS innovations to the OS ecosystem ,as we have canvased over a
>>> year ago with John ( but then COVID hit and we could not take off). I do
>>> not see space for this, including any potential support for SIGs (I
>>> understand they should be self-financing in the longer term, but there may
>>> be need for some start up funds for new ones) – working groups are, as we
>>> know, a different story ( Communication and Finance and Membership).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you all for the great job in planning ahead, great to see the
>>> community keeping momentum ( and apologies for radio silence for a while)!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Oceania <oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of John
>>> Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, 26 March 2021 at 3:57 pm
>>> *To: *Oceania community <oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022
>>>
>>> Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to budget planning. I have a
>>> few comments/questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *1. Conference*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The proposed budget includes an AUD $5000 loss for the conference, which
>>> doesn't align with past experience. Even last year, when plans were
>>> derailed mid-year and we had to create a new plan on the fly, we still
>>> turned a small profit overall [1], despite minimal focus on sponsorship.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FOSS4G 2021 (global) will be fully online, and they're running a
>>> relatively successful sponsorship drive. If we are running another hybrid
>>> conference, it feels like there's potential to find sponsorship. Last
>>> year's event was the largest in-person event we've ever organised, in terms
>>> of overall attendance, and with that experience behind us, I think there's
>>> a significant value proposition for sponsors. Since conference revenue has
>>> been the predominant source of income for OO, I feel this is a sensible
>>> place to focus. The assumption there won't be any significant income feels
>>> like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *2. Good Mojo*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A question about Good Mojo expenditure: why reduce it to zero? I guess
>>> there's still ~$8k in the Good Mojo fund since the 2020-2021 budget has 0
>>> under actual. I suggest this should be used, the people and orgs that
>>> contributed to it in 2018 and 2019 would probably like to see their
>>> contributions put to use. If there is an in-person event then maybe
>>> reviving the Travel Grant Program would make sense. Hubs could be enabled
>>> to have a local impact using these funds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *3. Microgrants*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Last, re: Microgrants, I feel $2k won't be enough. There has been a lot
>>> of interest in the first few weeks of the program. $2k will only fund ~8
>>> grants over the whole year. I suspect we could increase this to $6k, which
>>> would average 2 grants per month.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174P83K_AnDHrH-HbsJmAdXQfrdbTR9ElVcHtxQ1lrWw/edit#gid=1331367998
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 20:56, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The OSGeo Oceania Finance committee met earlier this week, and one of
>>> the items discussed is preparing a budget for FY 21/22. Once we have done
>>> this we will forward it to the OSGeo Oceania Board to approve. We plan to
>>> present to the Board at the April meeting in approx. 4 weeks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We would welcome input and discussion from OSGeo Oceania members and
>>> community around the budget. You can review 20/21 and the proposed 21/22
>>> budget at
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cbd3Rt5R688qrZ3eTCHxpRZ8HbII358_1UARf3m5qBs/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Too much? Too little? What should we be spending money on? Potential
>>> income sources?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The key issue is that it is unlikely we will have any significant income
>>> for FY 21/22 as the Conference Working group is planning another hybrid
>>> virtual conference. We would hope this would not be the case in FY 22/23.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are looking forward to your input
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg, Alex, Dionne and Ed
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>> _______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210401/356a08bb/attachment.html>