[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

Fri Apr 2 01:45:49 PDT 2021

No, this isn't accurate. All of the Perth Hub initiatives were funded
locally. We were totally self-funded and didn't make any expenditures from
the Good Mojo fund. I tried to get access to Good Mojo funds for Perth and
other hubs but was unsuccessful.

We had a women's breakfast in Perth, budgeted and paid for with surplus
from Perth ticket sales and sponsorship. We had a small travel grant
program, paid for by donations from Perth attendees. Our accounting is here
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1adiSMW6O84_gLql33cD47kuHMN2Xdu4TWEJjG5jAsTM/edit#gid=127270298>
.

I recall Auckland had a women's breakfast, that might be where the $330.34
comes from.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:37, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Ed
>
> And to others, I haven't quite weighed in on the comments included in
> emails yet.
>
> On Good Mojo, there has been just over $400 distributed through John
> Bryant's initiatives. There was a women's breakfast and something coded as
> a 'grant' for the Perth hub, some kind of travel grant?
>
> So yes, it's not quite accurate to say we spent $0. Profit and loss is
> included for this FY below.
>
> Cheers,
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 16:14, Edoardo Neerhut <eneerhut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @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
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210402/6ff96269/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 103953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210402/6ff96269/attachment.png>