Discussion our financial situation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
+1
thanks

Il 14/11/19 10:11, DelazJ ha scritto:

> Hi Ale, all
>
> Le jeu. 14 nov. 2019 à 09:43, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>
>     On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:28 AM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi, I fully agree on all proposals, if we have a few bucks lefts I'd
>     really like to dedicate some time to fix and enhance the HTML/CSS
>     part of the website and in particular the documentation/manual, I
>     think that the current style is not ideal and I would like to see
>     something more similar to https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/  with:
>     - TOC on the right side
>     - color theme more in line with our official color palette
>     - better fonts and styles for sections and headings
>     - better layout for bulleted lists
>
> Speaking only for the documentation, Richard has proposed months ago a
> migration to a readthedocs-based theme and I've been looking into this
> the last weeks. An earlier version is available at
> https://qgis.org/test/en/docs/  with a branch at
> https://github.com/DelazJ/QGIS-Documentation/blob/bing_bang_boum/ (not
> the latest changes)
> This does not seem to be the same look as what are you are suggesting
> but the main missing visual bits (not pushed online) is the menu at the
> bottom allowing to move to versions and translations.
>
> Sorry if ever i'm off-topic but wanted to share that information in case
> something has to be decided in this area.
>
> Regards,
> Harrissou
>
>
>     There are also some minor things that could be enhanced in the
>     plugins website:
>     - mobile layout has some glitches
>     - what to do with popular plugins (better algorithm?, drop it
>     completely?)
>
>
>     Personally, I'd be happier to work on bugfixing but I also feel that
>     somebody should really dedicate some time to the visual side of the
>     websites.
>
>     Kind regards
>
>     --
>     Alessandro Pasotti
>     w3:   www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Qgis-psc mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi all,
why not doing this through grants? I think (as the following discussion
shows) that deciding within the PSC what specific work to fund is always
open to discussions. Grants have proved IMHO to be a transparent and
efficient way of investing.
Cheers.

Il 14/11/19 08:23, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

> Hi Tim
>
> Improving our infrastructure (stripe integration, changelog, etc.) is
> definitely worth-while investing into it. Do you have estimates, how
> much time/money certain tasks would imply?
>
> Or should we say - let's dedicate 10k € and let you work with it?
>
> Yes, I also agree that bug fixing is always useful.
>
> Thanks for your reply and greetings,
>
> Andreas
>
> On 2019-11-14 01:00, Tim Sutton wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>  
>>  
>> I would be grateful if we (Kartoza) could get funded to add the stripe
>> etc integration into the sponsorships platform, stripe payments for
>> certifications, and also improving the infrastructure management to
>> have a better setup for hosting plugins, feed, changelog, planet, and
>> automating the hosting of API Docs and QGIS site as GitHub pages or
>> similar static hosting environment. Many of these task are already
>> underway but it would help us to get dedicated time from Anita Hapsari
>> onto this.
>>  
>> Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on,
>> we seem to have an endless supply :-P
>>  
>> Regards
>>  
>> Tim
>>
>>> On 13 Nov 2019, at 21:57, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with
>>> the budget:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>> I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and
>>> expenses will be higher than expected.
>>>
>>> In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of
>>> the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not
>>> to have to pay taxes on revenues.
>>>
>>> Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be
>>> finished until January for around 15k?
>>>
>>> Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find
>>> one)? Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the discussion,
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>  
>> *Tim Sutton*
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>  
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi Andreas, others,

Il 14/11/19 08:37, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

>> * the missed expenses for GH migration means that the devs did it
>> voluntarily?
>>  
>  
> That budget item was actually for github to gitlab migration - which did
> not really happen and there isn't even consensus that we should do it.

thanks for clarifying

> If you mean the Redmine to Github issue migration - yes, that wasn't
> invoiced and thus voluntary work.

thanks again

>> * I see LC meeting was more expensive than predicted; I understand the
>> organizers devoted back a part of the income to QGIS.ORG: does this
>> balance off?
>>  
>  
> What is an LC meeting? Sorry, I don't understand this term.

Juergen was right, as usual - sorry for being too short

>> * certification is starting to get momentum; the plan was to have a
>> self-sustaining structure, so I believe a part of the surplus should be
>> devoted to the development, setup, and management of the infrastructure
>> (thanks Tim!)
>>  
>  
> Yes, it's progressing nicely. I wonder, if in the future, such income
> should be dedicated into improving the training material and education
> situation? Would make sense to me. As many people pointed out, training
> and education, and getting into University curricula seems to be one of
> the key factors why ESRI is so successful. It would make sense to
> dedicate funds towards this aspect. Not that I have clear ideas what
> this means, but maybe others have?

IMHO the first funds should be used to cover the setup expenses; in the
longer term improving the documentation would be good too (see my other
email on this subject).

>> I'd appreciate your comments on these points.
>> If we end up with a net profit, I suggest reinvesting it mostly in
>> bugfixing, secondarily in grant programs (something like 75/25). I
>> believe the interesting proposal from Tim can easily fall in the second
>> category.
>>  
>  
> yes
>  
>>
>> I think we should also discuss about:
>> * how effective each expense is, to learn from the lesson and do an even
>> better allocation for the future
>>  
>  
> I think most of the expenses (bug fixing definitely, grants, maintenance
> of packaging and code reviews, CI, etc.) definitely pay off. There is no
> doubt about that. Also investing into our infrastructure is a necessity.
> Do you see any expenses that seem unnecessary or ineffective? I don't

It is quite normal that of all investments some is more fruitful than
others. I'd like to know the general feeling about that, in a frank and
open manner.

> Another thing that we should continue is investing into related and
> upstream projects. The qt5 improvement and collaboration with KDAB seems
> to have been successful and there would be further improvements that
> would be useful.

good to know - it would be good to have a very short report of this
success, to spread the voice more widely

>> * the balance between paid work and volunteer work, to ensure a fair
>> treatment for anybody.
>>  
>  
> That is always a tough topic. What I can say is that most, if not all,
> people who get payments from QGIS.ORG invest in addition at least an
> equal amount of time that they invoice to QGIS.ORG. Also enabling our
> core devs to dedicate some days in a row an bug fixing and let them
> focus in some areas of our code base or grant projects is more effective
> in my opinion than trying to come up with complicated other systems,
> like estimating things up-front and ask for detailed quotes. This would
> only add a lot of administrative burdens and by the time, devs analyzed
> things to do a proper quote, they already did most of the work.

I'm 100% with you about avoiding complications and bureaucracy - this
has always been our strength, let's keep on this path.
What I'd like is that people have (what they perceive as) equal
treatment for equal investment. There are several tasks (I repeat
myself, I know) of which some are paid and some are volunteer. IMHO this
is causing frictions and discontent, which we occasionally see
surfacing, and we should avoid to maintain a friendly and pleasant
community. I know it's not an easy task, that's why I'm submitting my
thought asking for suggestions.

Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
In reply to this post by pcav
If I understand Andreas correctly it needs to be spent soon because of
taxes.

Personally I'm happy with grant proposals just as much as I trust the
PSC to spend this wisely in an ad-hoc situation.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 12:35 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> Hi all,
> why not doing this through grants? I think (as the following discussion
> shows) that deciding within the PSC what specific work to fund is always
> open to discussions. Grants have proved IMHO to be a transparent and
> efficient way of investing.
> Cheers.
>
> Il 14/11/19 08:23, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
>> Hi Tim
>>
>> Improving our infrastructure (stripe integration, changelog, etc.) is
>> definitely worth-while investing into it. Do you have estimates, how
>> much time/money certain tasks would imply?
>>
>> Or should we say - let's dedicate 10k € and let you work with it?
>>
>> Yes, I also agree that bug fixing is always useful.
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and greetings,
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On 2019-11-14 01:00, Tim Sutton wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I would be grateful if we (Kartoza) could get funded to add the stripe
>>> etc integration into the sponsorships platform, stripe payments for
>>> certifications, and also improving the infrastructure management to
>>> have a better setup for hosting plugins, feed, changelog, planet, and
>>> automating the hosting of API Docs and QGIS site as GitHub pages or
>>> similar static hosting environment. Many of these task are already
>>> underway but it would help us to get dedicated time from Anita Hapsari
>>> onto this.
>>>  
>>> Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on,
>>> we seem to have an endless supply :-P
>>>  
>>> Regards
>>>  
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> On 13 Nov 2019, at 21:57, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with
>>>> the budget:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0
>>>>
>>>> I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and
>>>> expenses will be higher than expected.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of
>>>> the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not
>>>> to have to pay taxes on revenues.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be
>>>> finished until January for around 15k?
>>>>
>>>> Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find
>>>> one)? Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the discussion,
>>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  
>>> *Tim Sutton*
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
I think the "tax emergency" can be fixed trusting our bugfixers, and
paying their future fixes in advance, then releasing some resources for
more 2020 grants.

Il 14/11/19 12:46, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
> If I understand Andreas correctly it needs to be spent soon because of
> taxes.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

ginetto
christmas bug-fix compain... as a community gift (well... it's not a real gift more than a tax workaround) but it woks as marketing campaigns.

BTW I would prefer to invest in windows CI or infrastructure.

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Book: Mastering QGIS3 - 3rd Edition
* Hire a team: http://www.qcooperative.net
**************************************************************************************************


On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 12:53, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the "tax emergency" can be fixed trusting our bugfixers, and
paying their future fixes in advance, then releasing some resources for
more 2020 grants.

Il 14/11/19 12:46, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
> If I understand Andreas correctly it needs to be spent soon because of
> taxes.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Even Rouault-2
On jeudi 14 novembre 2019 13:03:01 CET Luigi Pirelli wrote:
> christmas bug-fix compain... as a community gift (well... it's not a real
> gift more than a tax workaround) but it woks as marketing campaigns.
>
> BTW I would prefer to invest in windows CI or infrastructure.

One option to perhaps consider for a vendor-hosted Windows CI could be Azure Pipelines.

From
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/hosted?view=azure-devops#capabilities-and-limitations
"""
Provide at least 10 GB of storage for your source and build outputs.
Provide a free tier:
    Public project: 10 free Microsoft-hosted parallel jobs that can run for up to 360 minutes (6 hours) each time, with no overall time limit per month. Contact us to get your free tier limits increased.
[...]
Run on Microsoft Azure general purpose virtual machines Standard_DS2_v2
"""

The config of the VM is at
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/sizes-general#dsv2-series

Standard_DS2_v2
vCPU = 2
Memory = 7 GiB
SSD = 14 GiB
....


The number of vCPU might be the limiting factor for QGIS. Perhaps they would be open
to provide a more powerful config.

I've very limited personal experience with it. We use it on GDAL for the generation of our
documentation from .rst, so nothing really demanding.

PDAL uses it for their Linux, Mac and Windows builds

Windows build script:
https://github.com/PDAL/PDAL/blob/master/scripts/azp/win.yml

Example of a run of a build:
https://dev.azure.com/hobuinc/PDAL/_build/results?buildId=687&view=logs
14 minutes for the Linux build
20 minutes for the Windows build
11 minutes for the Mac build

Just food for thought. I've no Microsoft shares :-)


Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by Matthias Kuhn 🌍

Hi,

Yes - we need a relatively quick decision. Grant proposal usually take longer to process.

My suggestion: let's discuss this at next week's PSC meeting. Now that we have 2-3 good proposals, we have a good ground for discussions.

I am sorry that I come late with this - but earlier, the situation was way too unclear and impossible to project our funds until the year's end. It is still a bit vague. Maybe at the end it will be 12 or 18k that we have available.

As to taxes:

We can make up to 10k CHF profit per year (approx. 9.2k €) without having to pay taxes on that income, but if we go beyond it, a significant amount of the income will be taxes. There might be a way to accumulate such excess income as allowings (Rückstellungen) for expected extra expenses - but when I read the tax documents, this is mainly about "things", like buying a car, IT hardware, investing into buildings, repairs or replacements of things we need, etc. Our "digital nature" of our association doesn't fit that schema very well ;-)

The tax is 8% on the revenues (if we go beyond 10k revenues). So if our revenue is 12k CHF, we'd pay 960 CHF taxes (I'd like to avoid that). The tax on financial assets (our amount on the account on Dec 31) is 0.75 per mille - so negligible.

I will have to investigate if the loss from last year that we had, can be taken into account for this year, thus decreasing our revenues, but it isn't yet clear to me.

Now that I read the documents from the tax office again - the tax declaration for this year will be different anyway. I just read that membership payments (our sustaining memberships) are not regarded as part of the revenues (that accounts for more than 50% of our income). I just learned that minutes ago. Actually, that's quite good for us, but it will make accounting a bit more complicated.

I'll try to summarize the situation until PSC meeting next week.

Greetings,

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 12:46, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

If I understand Andreas correctly it needs to be spent soon because of taxes.

Personally I'm happy with grant proposals just as much as I trust the PSC to spend this wisely in an ad-hoc situation.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 12:35 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
Hi all,
why not doing this through grants? I think (as the following discussion
shows) that deciding within the PSC what specific work to fund is always
open to discussions. Grants have proved IMHO to be a transparent and
efficient way of investing.
Cheers.

Il 14/11/19 08:23, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
Hi Tim

Improving our infrastructure (stripe integration, changelog, etc.) is
definitely worth-while investing into it. Do you have estimates, how
much time/money certain tasks would imply?

Or should we say - let's dedicate 10k € and let you work with it?

Yes, I also agree that bug fixing is always useful.

Thanks for your reply and greetings,

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 01:00, Tim Sutton wrote:

Hi
    I would be grateful if we (Kartoza) could get funded to add the stripe
etc integration into the sponsorships platform, stripe payments for
certifications, and also improving the infrastructure management to
have a better setup for hosting plugins, feed, changelog, planet, and
automating the hosting of API Docs and QGIS site as GitHub pages or
similar static hosting environment. Many of these task are already
underway but it would help us to get dedicated time from Anita Hapsari
onto this.
  Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on,
we seem to have an endless supply :-P
  Regards
  Tim

On 13 Nov 2019, at 21:57, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

Hi all,

I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with
the budget:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0

I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and
expenses will be higher than expected.

In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of
the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not
to have to pay taxes on revenues.

Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be
finished until January for around 15k?

Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find
one)? Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?

Thanks for the discussion,

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
  ---
  *Tim Sutton*
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
  

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by pcav

Hi Paolo,

On 2019-11-14 12:46, Paolo Cavallini wrote:


* I see LC meeting was more expensive than predicted; I understand the
organizers devoted back a part of the income to QGIS.ORG: does this
balance off?
 
 
What is an LC meeting? Sorry, I don't understand this term.

Juergen was right, as usual - sorry for being too short
 

I can comment on why the "LC" ;-) expenses are higher than the Bucharest ("BC" ;-) ) one. These have simply to do with the fact that

a) dinner, food and services in Western Europe are more expensive than in Eastern Europe

b) more people asked for travel reimbursements (hotel and airfare)

In Bucharest hardly anyone asked for reimbursement, as most people went to FOSS4G anyway.

You can see all the details in the account document https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOt4RFJkJ7LaTAnEGmQ2VB1DZT8Q9Ior-b_uBAVP8YQ/edit#gid=351919521 in tab "Expenses 2019".

Greetings,

Andreas


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi

On 11/14/19 1:49 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Yes - we need a relatively quick decision. Grant proposal usually take
> longer to process.
>
> My suggestion: let's discuss this at next week's PSC meeting. Now that
> we have 2-3 good proposals, we have a good ground for discussions.
>
> I am sorry that I come late with this - but earlier, the situation was
> way too unclear and impossible to project our funds until the year's
> end. It is still a bit vague. Maybe at the end it will be 12 or 18k
> that we have available.
>
> As to taxes:
>
> We can make up to 10k CHF profit per year (approx. 9.2k €) without
> having to pay taxes on that income, but if we go beyond it, a
> significant amount of the income will be taxes. There might be a way
> to accumulate such excess income as allowings (Rückstellungen) for
> expected extra expenses - but when I read the tax documents, this is
> mainly about "things", like buying a car, IT hardware, investing into
> buildings, repairs or replacements of things we need, etc. Our
> "digital nature" of our association doesn't fit that schema very well ;-)
>
> The tax is 8% on the revenues (if we go beyond 10k revenues). So if
> our revenue is 12k CHF, we'd pay 960 CHF taxes (I'd like to avoid
> that). The tax on financial assets (our amount on the account on Dec
> 31) is 0.75 per mille - so negligible.
>
> I will have to investigate if the loss from last year that we had, can
> be taken into account for this year, thus decreasing our revenues, but
> it isn't yet clear to me.
>
> Now that I read the documents from the tax office again - the tax
> declaration for this year will be different anyway. I just read that
> membership payments (our sustaining memberships) are not regarded as
> part of the revenues (that accounts for more than 50% of our income).
> I just learned that minutes ago. Actually, that's quite good for us,
> but it will make accounting a bit more complicated.
>
> I'll try to summarize the situation until PSC meeting next week.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andreas
>
Thanks for the in-depth report, and continued work on the finances Andreas.

It is much appreciated!

Matthias

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Thanks Andreas for clarifying. My question was whether the donation by LC organizers brought our effective expenses down to the level budgeted.
Nothing wrong if not, just to have the global picture.
Cheers.

On 14 November 2019 14:59:41 EET, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Paolo,

On 2019-11-14 12:46, Paolo Cavallini wrote:


* I see LC meeting was more expensive than predicted; I understand the
organizers devoted back a part of the income to QGIS.ORG: does this
balance off?
 
 
What is an LC meeting? Sorry, I don't understand this term.

Juergen was right, as usual - sorry for being too short
 

I can comment on why the "LC" ;-) expenses are higher than the Bucharest ("BC" ;-) ) one. These have simply to do with the fact that

a) dinner, food and services in Western Europe are more expensive than in Eastern Europe

b) more people asked for travel reimbursements (hotel and airfare)

In Bucharest hardly anyone asked for reimbursement, as most people went to FOSS4G anyway.

You can see all the details in the account document https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOt4RFJkJ7LaTAnEGmQ2VB1DZT8Q9Ior-b_uBAVP8YQ/edit#gid=351919521 in tab "Expenses 2019".

Greetings,

Andreas


--
Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4

Yes, if we take into account the 1500 € contribution from QGIS.es (excess income from conference), than the expenses for the LC meeting would be closer to the budget and only 1k above the budget. It is just a matter if you keep expenses and contributions separate or not.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 14:37, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

Thanks Andreas for clarifying. My question was whether the donation by LC organizers brought our effective expenses down to the level budgeted.
Nothing wrong if not, just to have the global picture.
Cheers.



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
thanks very clear.
cheers.

Il 14/11/19 14:46, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

> Yes, if we take into account the 1500 € contribution from QGIS.es
> (excess income from conference), than the expenses for the LC meeting
> would be closer to the budget and only 1k above the budget. It is just a
> matter if you keep expenses and contributions separate or not.
>
> Andreas
>
> On 2019-11-14 14:37, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andreas for clarifying. My question was whether the donation by
>> LC organizers brought our effective expenses down to the level budgeted.
>> Nothing wrong if not, just to have the global picture.
>> Cheers.
>>
>

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

geomenke
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hello everyone,

>> * certification is starting to get momentum; the plan was to have a
>> self-sustaining structure, so I believe a part of the surplus should be
>> devoted to the development, setup, and management of the infrastructure
>> (thanks Tim!)

>Yes, it's progressing nicely. I wonder, if in the future, such income
>should be dedicated into improving the training material and education
>situation? Would make sense to me. As many people pointed out, training
>and education, and getting into University curricula seems to be one of
>the key factors why ESRI is so successful. It would make sense to
>dedicate funds towards this aspect. Not that I have clear ideas what
>this means, but maybe others have?  

I love the idea of investing income from the certification program into development of some sort of university curriculum, and I would love to work on it. As I wrote in my blog recently, I think getting more programs teaching with QGIS is key to broader FOSS adoption. I've done quite a bit of this type of work, first with a university level course I developed in 2008 and have been updating ever since. Then with the GeoAcademy, and most recently with Discover QGIS 3.x - which I wrote hoping professors could use it all or in part to begin teaching with QGIS. 

I would love to contribute to this. Obviously there is already a lot of great material out there - like the QGIS tutorial. So this could be a conglomeration of existing materials including things like pyQGIS tutorials. How it might differ from the current tutorial is that it would incorporate more GIS concepts like data models, discussions of file formats, cartographic theory, database theory, projections, common analysis workflows etc. 

It might just be a matter of updating, repackaging and getting the word out. Not to trivialize all of that, but to say a lot of the building blocks are already in place.
Kurt

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
12