[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

Tue Apr 6 21:22:46 PDT 2021

I feel like I'm being misunderstood, but I don't want to do this again.
Bailing out of this discussion. Over and out.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 12:11, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey John
>
> Just want to clarify what was discussed last year. And although it was a
> blur, from your email I see this:
>
> > I propose that OSGeo Oceania empower the conference committee to use the
> Good Mojo fund as it sees fit, with minimal criteria: facilitating
> diversity and inclusion at the conference, and basic financial oversight.
>
> And I recall from my thinking and the later emails that we
> essentially said that we are not going to make the entire Good Mojo fund
> available to be spent as the "conference committee sees fit."
>
> The Good Mojo fund was and still is available for specific funding
> requests.
>
> On this accounting issue, I have changed the few hundred dollars to be
> Conference-related rather than Good Mojo related.
>
> And an important point is that there is no accounting for how each hub
> performed, and I don't consider there to be a surplus held by OSGeo Oceania
> on behalf of any of the hubs that returned a surplus, just like there is no
> deficit held on behalf of those that returned a deficit. The conference as
> a whole ran at a loss, which is just how we planned.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 11:35 am, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20210407/5ef37403/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/20210407/5ef37403/attachment.png>