[OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022

Sat Mar 27 23:56:58 PDT 2021

*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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20210328/17cecea6/attachment.html>