[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

Tue Apr 6 21:27:02 PDT 2021

+1 John.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 14:23, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>

-- 

*Edwin Liava’a*

Certified Blockchain Expert Certificate ID: 27490456

Certified Blockchain Developer Certificate ID: 28452131

Certified Blockchain Architect Certificate ID: 29017578

Phone/Whatsapp: +61 451013850

Skype: etuini

Email: etuini.liavaa at gmail.com

<https://www.facebook.com/edwin.liavaa>.
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/edwin-liava-a-23150447/>.
<https://twitter.com/EdwinLiavaa>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210407/96c68eec/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/20210407/96c68eec/attachment.png>