[OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May

[eli]

Hi all,

I'm briefly adding my two cents on this discussion, as I was too part of it
'live' and I think that only reading the minutes could lend to some
misinterpretations: what I understood during the debate was Alex just
pointing out that if OO decides to not support at all the conference, that
could lend to the community not being satisfied by the decision, as many
would love to have the international conference in the region, and the
local committee to go ahead without OO, which could be seen as a 'break' in
the community.

That, for me, was just a 'worst case scenario' kind of thing, not something
certain to happen. Moreover, I felt that nobody in the board was opposed to
supporting the bidding at all, just rightly very worried that we could not
sustain a financial loss, and that would bring the organisation to an end.

So yes, we did discuss a lot of 'worst case scenarios' as I think we
should, but in the end we decided to throw our full support to the local
committee, even with some reserves about the budget and especially
attendance numbers. Anyway, I think the board would still be very
interested to see if there are ways to discuss with OSGeo for financial
aid, as Adam pointed out, in case our bidding is successful. What does the
local committee think of it? Adam, could you give us more information about
this?

And finally, I really want to thank our deputy chair John, who after every
single board meeting takes the time to review, clean and prepare the
minutes so everybody can access them quickly. I think it's very important
to have them out for you all to read and I'm glad they do spark some
interesting discussions!

Cheers,
Elisa

Il giorno mer 22 mag 2024 alle ore 09:08 Alex Leith via Oceania <
oceania at lists.osgeo.org> ha scritto:

> Hi Adam
>
> The minutes are very brief and don't really catch the nuance of the
> discussion, but those are the broad strokes yes.
>
> If you look at the four motions, we (the Board) were careful to first
> consider if we were comfortable being fiscal sponsors, and therefore
> providing seed funding. There was a lengthy discussion about this specific
> topic. My point was if OO aren't going to provide support, in terms of
> fiscal sponsorship (i.e., taking on the risk of a loss) then the local
> organising committee would need to find another organisation to do this (to
> be the bank). In that case, OO would not be party to the organising of the
> event. The sponsor would be OSGeo and the fiscal sponsor would be some
> other entity, by necessity. And my point was this would potentially lead to
> a split in our community, which would be a really bad thing.
>
> Also, this was me pointing out this risk, and not the auckland committee.
> (Though I am on the organising committee, or course! I wear multiple hats,
> and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest was declared.)
>
> I guess to dig a little deeper, OO could have committed to being the
> fiscal sponsor, but not the seed funder, but that's not the decision we
> made. And a lot of the contention in the meeting was really about the event
> running at a loss and OO not being able to survive that circumstance.
>
> I hope that clears it up?
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 16:57, Adam Steer via Oceania <
> oceania at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex, all
>>
>> The specific statements of interest are these:
>> ---
>> ● Q: Possible to ask OSGeo to be the backer instead of OO? Alex: risk of
>> losing money is basically zero, the bigger risk is that we split the
>> community and upset those who have worked on this.
>>  Q: How would the community be split? Alex: If OO chooses not to support,
>> the LOC would have to find support elsewhere, so OO would not participate
>> ---
>>
>> In a robust and cohsesive community, what specific risks about splitting
>> the community do the Auckland bid committee (AKLBC) see in asking OSGeo to
>> seed fund a global FOSS4G in the region?
>>
>> And: why does the AKLBC think that asking OSGeo to seed the event (rather
>> than OO) would mean OO would not participate?
>>
>> In the context of a global FOSS4G in the region it seems straightforward
>> that no matter who provided the seed funding, OO would act as a bank and
>> provide other support - without needing to take on the whole financial
>> risk.
>>
>> If any other bid committee members want to add some insight, that'd be
>> great! A global FOSS4G is a huge undertaking, important for both regional
>> and global communities - so we need to be really clear in the communtiy
>> about where the kind of statements made at the last board meeting come
>> from; and work as a community toward resolution.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2024, 14:22 Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey John and Adam
>>>
>>> I raised the potential for a split in the community, only as a risk, not
>>> as a threat or a potential or imminent thing.
>>>
>>> My view is that we’re a coherent and broadly cohesive group. My point
>>> was only that if we (OSGeo Oceania's Board) didn’t support this initiative,
>>> that other paths might be pursued.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>
>
> --
> *Alex Leith*
> m: +61 419 189 050
> https://auspatious.com
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Potrebbe andar peggio...potrebbe piovere!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20240522/d6415715/attachment-0001.htm>