[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

Tue Apr 6 18:34:51 PDT 2021

I'm having trouble responding, because my experience with OSGeo Oceania in
most of 2020 was traumatising and marked with hostility, and I feel at high
risk of re-living that experience by engaging with this. I'll try to
clarify, but I won't engage in a war of words over it.

As I've said: last year, my attempt to access Good Mojo funds for the
conference was unsuccessful. Without this support, the Perth Hub designed a
budget [1] where things like a women's breakfast and travel grant would
only happen if we had enough of a surplus to cover them. We couldn't plan
these things until very late in the planning cycle, until we knew we had
sufficient ticket sales/sponsorship to cover all our expenses.

We received $170 in donations from attendees, who were told:

*Your contribution will go directly to our local grant program
> <https://2020.foss4g-oceania.org/hubs/perth/grant-program/>, to help
> deserving people who might otherwise find it difficult to attend. Any
> remaining amounts we don't manage to spend will be donated to a relevant
> charity.*
>

Our grant program paid for $70 in travel costs, and the remaining $100 was
donated to HOTOSM.

OSGeo Oceania can account for its funds however it sees fit. But I believe
it would be disingenuous to claim these particular activities were paid for
by the money that's sitting in the Good Mojo fund.

John

[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1adiSMW6O84_gLql33cD47kuHMN2Xdu4TWEJjG5jAsTM/edit#gid=2056617347

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 23:04, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am confused. All of the Perth Hubs expenses were paid by OSGeo Oceania
> as far as I can see in Xero. The Conference Committee asked that all
> Hubs, if they were charging a fee, to use Tito to collect funds. This was
> to insure the appropriate transparency, governance and ability to meet
> obligations around BAS etc. The Conference Committee asked each Hub to
> submit a budget, it was reviewed and approved/declined by the Conference Chair,
> and on production of receipts, expenses were paid. The Perth Hub did an
> excellent job (particularly in sponsorship) and raised more funds than
> was paid out. If they had run a deficit OSGeo would have still covered the
>  expenses as per the submitted budget.
>
> I don't understand the comment '*budgeted and paid for with surplus from
> Perth ticket sales and sponsorship*'. As per above the Women's breakfast
> was paid/reimbursed by OSGeo Oceania. Similar for this comment '*We had a
> small travel grant program, paid for by donations from Perth attendees*'
> I can see $70 for Travel Grant was reimbursed. Yes funds were raised but
> that was on behalf of OSGeo Oceania
>
> As a regional organisation we need to insure that we can support and fund
> initiatives across the Oceania region. From the below email it seems that
> the intention is/was to ring fence funds raised at the Perth Hub for Perth only
> activities. That is something I would not obviously support. It would be a
> very dangerous precedent in my mind, and be in direct conflict of the
> organisations aims in the region.
>
> In terms getting access to Good Mojo funds there was lots of discussion but
> nobody formally submitted a request (as far as I know). As an initial
> Board member who worked with JB to facilitate the Good Mojo concept , and
> as a member who has contributed twice to the Good Mojo fund, I am more
> than comfortable that Good Mojo funds are used for such items as Women's Breakfasts.
> In my mind this directly supports diversity. Of course this could have
> been communicated much better, in consultation with the Hub managers. It
> would probably also make sense to have a 'Good Mojo' web page on the
> upcoming OSGeo Oceania web page that explains it aims and how to apply for
> funds.
>
> I do agree that in this case it has got messy and that we do need to
> review how we account for such things as the Good Mojo Fund, and be more
> open and transparent about it (especially as it had separate fund raising
> commitment). We did discuss briefly in the last finance committee and I
> am sure it is something we will take on board moving forward. I reiterate
>  Alex's comments in that the organisation are all volunteers, and yes,
> sometime things get dropped. We would always welcome more help on the
> committees.....
>
> Greg.
>
> On 4/2/2021 6:46:42 PM, 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
>>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20210407/aa7aaaff/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/20210407/aa7aaaff/attachment.png>