[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

John Bryant johnwbryant at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 02:13:25 PDT 2021 

That's all I'm saying - these weren't paid for by the Good Mojo fund They
were paid for by other people.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 17:02, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John
>
> This IS accurate, based on what I reimbursed you, see below, which was
> taken from the spreadsheet you provided that I reimbursed you based on. A
> small excerpt is copied here.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> If these two items should not be coded against Good Mojo, then that's
> fine, I'll fix it. All that changes is that the conference makes a greater
> loss, and the Good Mojo fund stays fully charged!
>
> From looking at the final budget from Auckland, I don't think the
> breakfast happened.
>
> These kinds of details are extremely trivial, but I'm happy to
> defend them. And I also welcome folks to join the Finance Committee and to
> assist me in doing the accounting.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 19:46, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210402/8cdbea19/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/20210402/8cdbea19/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 64873 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210402/8cdbea19/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Oceania mailing list