Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

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

Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Till Adams-3
Dear conference committee,

you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
about that during the RfP).

On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
still marked as "draft" [1].

So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
to define a rule here also.


Any thoughts?

Till



[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

stevenfeldman
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Till Adams-3

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

stevenfeldman
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Eli Adam
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

jody.garnett
Eli/Steven:

Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
--
Jody Garnett


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

michael terner-2
I can only speak for, and go as far back as Boston, but this is what happened in 2017:
  1. We requested, and received seed funding.
  2. We requested retaining up to 20% of the surplus, or $25,000, which ever was lower, in our proposal. And, during the RPF we received and answered questions about this. In the end, we generated a large surplus and retained $25,000 and OSGeo had in excess of 80% of the surplus (but I don't have the precise number/percentage handy, but it was well over >$100k).
  3. In our proposal we requested the "larger than usual" amount of the surplus with our ambitions being to start an OSGeo chapter. We were not 100% sure what our chapter would entail at that point. Would it be a "Boston Chapter"? A Northeast USA Chapter? Or, in the end, what was finally selected, and have founded through Guido's efforts, a US Chapter. This chapter is still in its nascent stage, but it has formed and has distributed funds to US-based events that showcase geospatial open source technology.
On a personal note, I support the notion of some events retaining a larger proportion of a conference surplus (i.e., above 15%) if they have a clear aim of what those funds would be used for, and that they recognize the importance of returning the majority, or at least an equal proportion, of the surplus to OSGeo. It can be a good thing to have the LOC be financially motivated to deliver a strong surplus.

I also support the notion of being as clear as possible with our guidelines and expectations in all relevant places (e.g., website, Wiki, RFP, etc.).

My $.02...

mt

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:36 PM Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:
Eli/Steven:

Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
--
Jody Garnett


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Eli Adam
Great suggestion
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 15:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Back in 2012 we proposed a small share for the UK local chapter for the Nottingham event -  we also made some small donations to some open source projects that we had used to run the conference. The funding that OSGeo:UK received has enabled us to run several UK FOSS4G events, sponsor QGIS user group events and PostGIS days and  get to a point where we are self sustaining and surpluses from our events can be reinvested in sponsoring code sprints and supporting OSGeo projects relevant to our UK members

I think it has become the norm since 2013 for some of the surplus to go to the local chapter - when Eli refers to the LOC I think he meant the local chapter not the organising committee?
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 19:35, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eli/Steven:

Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
--
Jody Garnett


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman

Hi all,

great to see such a fruitful discussion ;-).

I like the idea from Eli, maybe we should seperate between with/without seed money here.

Till


Am 03.01.20 um 12:27 schrieb Steven Feldman:
Great suggestion
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 15:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:34 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Back in 2012 we proposed a small share for the UK local chapter for the Nottingham event -  we also made some small donations to some open source projects that we had used to run the conference. The funding that OSGeo:UK received has enabled us to run several UK FOSS4G events, sponsor QGIS user group events and PostGIS days and  get to a point where we are self sustaining and surpluses from our events can be reinvested in sponsoring code sprints and supporting OSGeo projects relevant to our UK members

I think it has become the norm since 2013 for some of the surplus to go to the local chapter - when Eli refers to the LOC I think he meant the local chapter not the organising committee?

Yes, the local chapter that works on future OSGeo events in that region/etc.  I think of the LOC as being that chapter/future.  

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

great to see such a fruitful discussion ;-). 

I like the idea from Eli, maybe we should seperate between with/without seed money here.


Yes, makes sense but even in the case of no seed funding, I’m still in favor of the majority coming back to OSGeo.  This is how OSGeo exists (financially).

Eli



______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 19:35, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eli/Steven:

Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
--
Jody Garnett


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-)

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

stevenfeldman
We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 3 Jan 2020, at 14:40, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:34 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Back in 2012 we proposed a small share for the UK local chapter for the Nottingham event -  we also made some small donations to some open source projects that we had used to run the conference. The funding that OSGeo:UK received has enabled us to run several UK FOSS4G events, sponsor QGIS user group events and PostGIS days and  get to a point where we are self sustaining and surpluses from our events can be reinvested in sponsoring code sprints and supporting OSGeo projects relevant to our UK members

I think it has become the norm since 2013 for some of the surplus to go to the local chapter - when Eli refers to the LOC I think he meant the local chapter not the organising committee?

Yes, the local chapter that works on future OSGeo events in that region/etc.  I think of the LOC as being that chapter/future.  

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

great to see such a fruitful discussion ;-). 

I like the idea from Eli, maybe we should seperate between with/without seed money here.


Yes, makes sense but even in the case of no seed funding, I’m still in favor of the majority coming back to OSGeo.  This is how OSGeo exists (financially).

Eli



______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 19:35, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eli/Steven:

Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
--
Jody Garnett


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-) 

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Eli Adam


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:15 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

I think that has generally been clear.  If it isn’t, we should further clarify the rfp.


Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

That was an off the cuff suggestion.  I’d like to hear thoughtful suggestions of what the correct amount is to recognize the work and effort of the local chapter and to properly fund OSGeo activities in that region for a long time (or in the case of startup funds that sustain themselves, perpetuity).  

Once we come up with some numbers for that, we can consider different priority/stepping/etc formulas of how to get there.  

Leaving local funds for local OSGeo activities is one of the best ways to help grow OSGeo to new areas and for existing areas to thrive.  



We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.

I’ve not yet seen a proposal that does both low cost of conference passes and substantial surplus returns.  I’m open to trying one that does.  

I see the TGP (a substantial program run very well by you and others) as partly filling the needs of low cost conference tickets.  Due to the large scale of the TGP this seems to be doing okay.  I see local and regional events really filling the low cost conference pass need.  


Eli


______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 3 Jan 2020, at 14:40, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:34 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Back in 2012 we proposed a small share for the UK local chapter for the Nottingham event -  we also made some small donations to some open source projects that we had used to run the conference. The funding that OSGeo:UK received has enabled us to run several UK FOSS4G events, sponsor QGIS user group events and PostGIS days and  get to a point where we are self sustaining and surpluses from our events can be reinvested in sponsoring code sprints and supporting OSGeo projects relevant to our UK members

I think it has become the norm since 2013 for some of the surplus to go to the local chapter - when Eli refers to the LOC I think he meant the local chapter not the organising committee?

Yes, the local chapter that works on future OSGeo events in that region/etc.  I think of the LOC as being that chapter/future.  

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

great to see such a fruitful discussion ;-). 

I like the idea from Eli, maybe we should seperate between with/without seed money here.


Yes, makes sense but even in the case of no seed funding, I’m still in favor of the majority coming back to OSGeo.  This is how OSGeo exists (financially).

Eli



______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 19:35, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eli/Steven:

Question from the sidelines, do you know when the idea of funds going to the LOC started? As a bystander I thought the idea was to help found local OSGeo chapters but I am not sure if that happen in each case?
--
Jody Garnett


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we’re revising, stepped amounts make more sense to me, 50/50 split of the first $30,000, 90 OSGeo / 10 LOC there after.  OSGeo already has a host of great programs and ways to spend the money.  It also is the reason that FOSS4G happens.  (It also is how OSGeo exists).  

I’m all in favor of LOCs getting some portion of the proceeds (that’s why I like an aggressive initial percent), but think of what is a good amount for a LOC to tuck away for the future and then think of typical returns.  

Best regards, Eli

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:20 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till

IMO: The RfP is published each year, it sets out OSGeo’s expectations for LOCs to bid. I think it is binding but it would do no harm to strengthen that with some more formal language when we revise the RfP document later this year.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 2 Jan 2020, at 11:54, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks, I missed to read the RfP carefully ;-) 

Is it enough to have this only in the RfP docs?

Till


Am 02.01.20 um 12:39 schrieb Steven Feldman:
In the RfP document it says (my italics):

"Funding by OSGeo and distribution of surplus
    1. It is expected that all FOSS4G events will be budgeted and operated to deliver a surplus over costs. Part of the surplus will be donated to OSGeo.

    Seed Funding

    OSGeo can offer seed funding (an advance to cover start-up expenses and deposits before revenues are received) and an additional guarantee to cover losses (up to an agreed limit) in the event of unexpected events (subject to approval of budgets and regular financial updates to an OSGeo board representative).

    If OSGeo provides seed funding and guarantees, it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to OSGeo (a lower percentage will be considered for events hosted in Lower or Middle Income economies). OSGeo will provide a financial supervisor who must be consulted on all major financial decisions. For more information see ​https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    If a LOC does not require seed funding or guarantees from OSGeo, they will be expected to donate at least 50% of the surplus after costs to OSGeo.

    Travel Grant

    OSGeo will provide a grant of $10,000 minimum towards a Travel Grant Programme (see https://www.osgeo.org/initiatives/foss4g-travel-grant-program/​ ), the LOC are expected to raise at least an equivalent amount of funding through sponsorship, donations at registration or other means.

    Video

    OSGeo may provide loan funding towards the cost of recording the conference proceedings. If there is surplus from the conference, OSGeo requires this funding to be repaid in full to OSGeo before any calculation and distribution of the conference surplus."


    ______
    Steven

    Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

    Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter


    On 2 Jan 2020, at 09:05, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Dear conference committee,

    you know, that surplus of FOSS4G's is one of the major source of income
    of OSGeo. The upcoming two events are good examples, that we need a
    binding and general rule about "what happens with a potential surplus of
    a FOSS4G": Calgary did not claim for seed money and explained to
    transfer back "at least 50%", Buenes Aires recently requested for seed
    money and mentioned a transfer back of 30% in their bid (Steven asked
    about that during the RfP).

    On our last board meeting, we discussed the request from Buenes Aires
    regarding seed money. I know, there is a general rule, that says, that
    if a LOC of a FOSS4G requests for seed money, that we as an organisation
    expect, that at least 85% of the potential surplus goes back to OSGeo.
    This rule is AFAIK written in the "FOSS4G cookbook" but in the WIKI
    still marked as "draft" [1].

    So, in my eyes, we need to approve this rule and make it binding for
    future bids. Also, there is no rule about the surplus going back to
    OSGeo, if teams do *not* request for seed money. I think we should need
    to define a rule here also.


    Any thoughts?

    Till



    [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=FOSS4G_Handbook#Finances

    _______________________________________________
    Conference_dev mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Darrell Fuhriman
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
I might flip Eli’s formulation a bit — say 90% to OSGeo on the first $100k, then 50/50 thereafter, or perhaps some “bonus structure”. If the primary goal is to help OSGeo, then the incentive structure should reflect that.

As far as cost, it’s actually pretty hard to bring the cost down for a conference in the 1000-attendee size. The biggest knobs you have to turn are catering costs (i.e. don’t have food) and/or to bring in more sponsorship to subside the cost.

For most attendees, the cost of travel is the bulk of the cost of attending. So while it certainly can make a difference at the margins, I’m not sure it’s the driving factor for most people. (This would actually be an excellent question to survey past and prospective attendees — having data around this would really help our decision-making.)

FWIW, I know I’m often the lone voice in the wilderness on the topic, but this is a good case for investing in an individual, even if part time, to help find sponsorship dollars. It’s a very specific skillset, one which the LOCs may often not have, and one that would really benefit from building and maintaining long-term relationships in a way the current model of throwing all new people in the mix every year doesn’t.

More sponsorship money = more money for OSGeo and cheaper costs for attendees.

Darrell
 


On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:15 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org



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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

JonathanNeufeld

Hi All,

 

I know I’m late the conversation, here are a few thoughts from a current FOSS4G co-chair.

 

In my opinion FOSS4G has now reached the point where it is a major yearly global event that comes with a planning cycle >1 year. This means it also comes with a major budget, and cash flow management challenges; for the Calgary event we will likely spend $700k-$1M total.

 

The bidding process to host FOSS4G comes with opposing pressures to

  1. Keep ticket prices as low as possible, boosting the openness and accessibility of the event
  2. Make as much profit as possible, boosting the amount returned to OSGeo

 

Other commenters have mentioned this, and I would agree that sorting out which is the highest priority would provide a clear signal to bidders and LOCs on how to run their events. Does OSGeo want an event that maximizes accessibility, or profit? Neither is a wrong choice, however each choice will lead to a different type of event. LOCs can’t be expected to win the bid on low price, and then return a huge profit to OSGeo. From the conversation so far I would suggest that profitability is a higher interest that accessibility, especially if OSGeo depends on the surplus each year to fund operations.

 

The continuity from year to year and LOC to LOC is as good as it can be. Vasile and the BLOC did a great job handing off the 2019 event to the 2020 team, especially whilst in the midst of trying to run the event! We will do our best to pass things on to 2021, however, it’s worth recognizing that there is a lot of knowledge that gets lost through these types of transfers.

 

I strongly second Darrell’s suggestion below that OSGeo invest in bringing on a FOSS4G Director in a paid capacity to oversee the hosting and production of large-scale FOSS4G events. The benefits would be enormous:

 

  • Relationships with sponsors could be maintained from year to year, nurtured to provide growth, and create long-lasting partnerships.
    • This would greatly reduce the anxiety of fundraising by LOCs who only receive a list of emails, and amounts from previous chairs
    • The chair of the local committees would still be responsible for bringing in new, local, support to add to the pot
  • Deep understanding of the event, and avoidance of reinvention
    • As much as possible the LOCs try to use what was done in previous years and avoid re-solving problems that have already been tackled. However, there are always experiential learnings that come with hosting events, and these are hard to pass on. Having an individual with multiple experiences in hosting and running large scale events from year to year would ensure that all of the knowledge is maintained and brought forward into each event.
  • Long term vision
    • Event chairs are rightfully focused on delivering a successful event, and don’t think much beyond that
    • I think FOSS4G could benefit from having someone who is thinking on a multi-year timescale about the event, it’s growth, impact, and feasibility; as well as the goals for hosting it in different regions, with different focuses.
    • I know that the Conference Committee does this, but with all due respect, it’s from a hands-off perspective.
    • A paid individual could bring a long term vision to the operations of the event, making it easier to host, and more successful in the long run.

 

I would also suggest that OSGeo create a formal hosting agreement between itself and the LOC. This document provides clarity and certainty about roles, rights, and expectations of both parties. It’s a little nerve-wracking taking on a $1M/12moth project without this! The percentage to be returned to OSGeo would be clearly described in the document and signed by all parties.

 

Finally, I’ll provide my suggestion on a percentage: I think that 50/50 is fair split. Given the amount of effort, and risk, required to produce a $1M event asking LOCs to send more than half of the proceeds back to OSGeo seems unfair. As volunteers LOCs we’re not in it for the money, but it is a huge benefit to be able to reinvest that money locally.

 

Regards,

Jon

 

 

 

From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Darrell Fuhriman
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Cc: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>; Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

 

I might flip Eli’s formulation a bit — say 90% to OSGeo on the first $100k, then 50/50 thereafter, or perhaps some “bonus structure”. If the primary goal is to help OSGeo, then the incentive structure should reflect that.

 

As far as cost, it’s actually pretty hard to bring the cost down for a conference in the 1000-attendee size. The biggest knobs you have to turn are catering costs (i.e. don’t have food) and/or to bring in more sponsorship to subside the cost.

 

For most attendees, the cost of travel is the bulk of the cost of attending. So while it certainly can make a difference at the margins, I’m not sure it’s the driving factor for most people. (This would actually be an excellent question to survey past and prospective attendees — having data around this would really help our decision-making.)

 

FWIW, I know I’m often the lone voice in the wilderness on the topic, but this is a good case for investing in an individual, even if part time, to help find sponsorship dollars. It’s a very specific skillset, one which the LOCs may often not have, and one that would really benefit from building and maintaining long-term relationships in a way the current model of throwing all new people in the mix every year doesn’t.

 

More sponsorship money = more money for OSGeo and cheaper costs for attendees.

 

Darrell

 

 



On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:15 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

 

Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

 

We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

 

 


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Bradley Ashley
If I may add,

Jon's final point on the benefits of reinvestment of the money locally is incredibly important in regions where community volunteers are hard to come by and OSGeo doesn't have a previous long history.  In the case of our Calgary 2020 conference for example, we are tapping into several local organizations and their volunteers to ensure we have an LOC with the strongest experience.   

To that end, it is critical that these organizations see the local benefit outlast the excitement of the one time event and ensure we are able to nurture the growth of a new and lasting OSGeo presence in western Canada. This is of benefit to all involved in my opinion as it can easily grow the membership of OSGeo as well as the following of FOSS4G internationally.

Brad - the other 2020 co-chair 

From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> on behalf of Jonathan Neufeld <[hidden email]>
Sent: January 6, 2020 8:42 AM
To: Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]>; Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Cc: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>; Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus
 

Hi All,

 

I know I’m late the conversation, here are a few thoughts from a current FOSS4G co-chair.

 

In my opinion FOSS4G has now reached the point where it is a major yearly global event that comes with a planning cycle >1 year. This means it also comes with a major budget, and cash flow management challenges; for the Calgary event we will likely spend $700k-$1M total.

 

The bidding process to host FOSS4G comes with opposing pressures to

  1. Keep ticket prices as low as possible, boosting the openness and accessibility of the event
  2. Make as much profit as possible, boosting the amount returned to OSGeo

 

Other commenters have mentioned this, and I would agree that sorting out which is the highest priority would provide a clear signal to bidders and LOCs on how to run their events. Does OSGeo want an event that maximizes accessibility, or profit? Neither is a wrong choice, however each choice will lead to a different type of event. LOCs can’t be expected to win the bid on low price, and then return a huge profit to OSGeo. From the conversation so far I would suggest that profitability is a higher interest that accessibility, especially if OSGeo depends on the surplus each year to fund operations.

 

The continuity from year to year and LOC to LOC is as good as it can be. Vasile and the BLOC did a great job handing off the 2019 event to the 2020 team, especially whilst in the midst of trying to run the event! We will do our best to pass things on to 2021, however, it’s worth recognizing that there is a lot of knowledge that gets lost through these types of transfers.

 

I strongly second Darrell’s suggestion below that OSGeo invest in bringing on a FOSS4G Director in a paid capacity to oversee the hosting and production of large-scale FOSS4G events. The benefits would be enormous:

 

  • Relationships with sponsors could be maintained from year to year, nurtured to provide growth, and create long-lasting partnerships.
    • This would greatly reduce the anxiety of fundraising by LOCs who only receive a list of emails, and amounts from previous chairs
    • The chair of the local committees would still be responsible for bringing in new, local, support to add to the pot
  • Deep understanding of the event, and avoidance of reinvention
    • As much as possible the LOCs try to use what was done in previous years and avoid re-solving problems that have already been tackled. However, there are always experiential learnings that come with hosting events, and these are hard to pass on. Having an individual with multiple experiences in hosting and running large scale events from year to year would ensure that all of the knowledge is maintained and brought forward into each event.
  • Long term vision
    • Event chairs are rightfully focused on delivering a successful event, and don’t think much beyond that
    • I think FOSS4G could benefit from having someone who is thinking on a multi-year timescale about the event, it’s growth, impact, and feasibility; as well as the goals for hosting it in different regions, with different focuses.
    • I know that the Conference Committee does this, but with all due respect, it’s from a hands-off perspective.
    • A paid individual could bring a long term vision to the operations of the event, making it easier to host, and more successful in the long run.

 

I would also suggest that OSGeo create a formal hosting agreement between itself and the LOC. This document provides clarity and certainty about roles, rights, and expectations of both parties. It’s a little nerve-wracking taking on a $1M/12moth project without this! The percentage to be returned to OSGeo would be clearly described in the document and signed by all parties.

 

Finally, I’ll provide my suggestion on a percentage: I think that 50/50 is fair split. Given the amount of effort, and risk, required to produce a $1M event asking LOCs to send more than half of the proceeds back to OSGeo seems unfair. As volunteers LOCs we’re not in it for the money, but it is a huge benefit to be able to reinvest that money locally.

 

Regards,

Jon

 

 

 

From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Darrell Fuhriman
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Cc: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>; Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

 

I might flip Eli’s formulation a bit — say 90% to OSGeo on the first $100k, then 50/50 thereafter, or perhaps some “bonus structure”. If the primary goal is to help OSGeo, then the incentive structure should reflect that.

 

As far as cost, it’s actually pretty hard to bring the cost down for a conference in the 1000-attendee size. The biggest knobs you have to turn are catering costs (i.e. don’t have food) and/or to bring in more sponsorship to subside the cost.

 

For most attendees, the cost of travel is the bulk of the cost of attending. So while it certainly can make a difference at the margins, I’m not sure it’s the driving factor for most people. (This would actually be an excellent question to survey past and prospective attendees — having data around this would really help our decision-making.)

 

FWIW, I know I’m often the lone voice in the wilderness on the topic, but this is a good case for investing in an individual, even if part time, to help find sponsorship dollars. It’s a very specific skillset, one which the LOCs may often not have, and one that would really benefit from building and maintaining long-term relationships in a way the current model of throwing all new people in the mix every year doesn’t.

 

More sponsorship money = more money for OSGeo and cheaper costs for attendees.

 

Darrell

 

 



On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:15 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

 

Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

 

We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

 

 


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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Till Adams-3

Dear CC,


I believe that there are a number of ways to obtain funding directly from OSGeo for regional events or for the TGP's from regional events. Regional events are also an opportunity to collect money for local chapters (as we do with FOSSGIS since many years). In this respect I disagree with Jon's proposed 50/50 and plead for a higher share for the OSGeo, thus I like Elis idea with a stepwise share.


Since I managed the 2016 conference, which had a comparable financial risk, I know about the risk and I know how it feels to spend money you don't have ;-). On the other hand, the brands "FOSS4G" and "OSGeo" also guarantee to a certain degree that a FOSS4G conference will be a success, since FOSS4G is the most popular open source 4g event in the world.


I agree that Dan's ideas about the "central promotion/conference support person" have their charm, although I think there is a lot of knowledge in CC that can be drawn upon by the LOC's. If OSGeo were to set up such an office, it would also mean another financial risk for OSGeo - this also speaks for a higher share for OSGeo ;-).


jm2c


Till





Am 06.01.20 um 16:59 schrieb Bradley Ashley:
If I may add,

Jon's final point on the benefits of reinvestment of the money locally is incredibly important in regions where community volunteers are hard to come by and OSGeo doesn't have a previous long history.  In the case of our Calgary 2020 conference for example, we are tapping into several local organizations and their volunteers to ensure we have an LOC with the strongest experience.   

To that end, it is critical that these organizations see the local benefit outlast the excitement of the one time event and ensure we are able to nurture the growth of a new and lasting OSGeo presence in western Canada. This is of benefit to all involved in my opinion as it can easily grow the membership of OSGeo as well as the following of FOSS4G internationally.

Brad - the other 2020 co-chair 

From: Conference_dev [hidden email] on behalf of Jonathan Neufeld [hidden email]
Sent: January 6, 2020 8:42 AM
To: Darrell Fuhriman [hidden email]; Steven Feldman [hidden email]
Cc: Conference Dev [hidden email]; Eli Adam [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus
 

Hi All,

 

I know I’m late the conversation, here are a few thoughts from a current FOSS4G co-chair.

 

In my opinion FOSS4G has now reached the point where it is a major yearly global event that comes with a planning cycle >1 year. This means it also comes with a major budget, and cash flow management challenges; for the Calgary event we will likely spend $700k-$1M total.

 

The bidding process to host FOSS4G comes with opposing pressures to

  1. Keep ticket prices as low as possible, boosting the openness and accessibility of the event
  2. Make as much profit as possible, boosting the amount returned to OSGeo

 

Other commenters have mentioned this, and I would agree that sorting out which is the highest priority would provide a clear signal to bidders and LOCs on how to run their events. Does OSGeo want an event that maximizes accessibility, or profit? Neither is a wrong choice, however each choice will lead to a different type of event. LOCs can’t be expected to win the bid on low price, and then return a huge profit to OSGeo. From the conversation so far I would suggest that profitability is a higher interest that accessibility, especially if OSGeo depends on the surplus each year to fund operations.

 

The continuity from year to year and LOC to LOC is as good as it can be. Vasile and the BLOC did a great job handing off the 2019 event to the 2020 team, especially whilst in the midst of trying to run the event! We will do our best to pass things on to 2021, however, it’s worth recognizing that there is a lot of knowledge that gets lost through these types of transfers.

 

I strongly second Darrell’s suggestion below that OSGeo invest in bringing on a FOSS4G Director in a paid capacity to oversee the hosting and production of large-scale FOSS4G events. The benefits would be enormous:

 

  • Relationships with sponsors could be maintained from year to year, nurtured to provide growth, and create long-lasting partnerships.
    • This would greatly reduce the anxiety of fundraising by LOCs who only receive a list of emails, and amounts from previous chairs
    • The chair of the local committees would still be responsible for bringing in new, local, support to add to the pot
  • Deep understanding of the event, and avoidance of reinvention
    • As much as possible the LOCs try to use what was done in previous years and avoid re-solving problems that have already been tackled. However, there are always experiential learnings that come with hosting events, and these are hard to pass on. Having an individual with multiple experiences in hosting and running large scale events from year to year would ensure that all of the knowledge is maintained and brought forward into each event.
  • Long term vision
    • Event chairs are rightfully focused on delivering a successful event, and don’t think much beyond that
    • I think FOSS4G could benefit from having someone who is thinking on a multi-year timescale about the event, it’s growth, impact, and feasibility; as well as the goals for hosting it in different regions, with different focuses.
    • I know that the Conference Committee does this, but with all due respect, it’s from a hands-off perspective.
    • A paid individual could bring a long term vision to the operations of the event, making it easier to host, and more successful in the long run.

 

I would also suggest that OSGeo create a formal hosting agreement between itself and the LOC. This document provides clarity and certainty about roles, rights, and expectations of both parties. It’s a little nerve-wracking taking on a $1M/12moth project without this! The percentage to be returned to OSGeo would be clearly described in the document and signed by all parties.

 

Finally, I’ll provide my suggestion on a percentage: I think that 50/50 is fair split. Given the amount of effort, and risk, required to produce a $1M event asking LOCs to send more than half of the proceeds back to OSGeo seems unfair. As volunteers LOCs we’re not in it for the money, but it is a huge benefit to be able to reinvest that money locally.

 

Regards,

Jon

 

 

 

From: Conference_dev [hidden email] On Behalf Of Darrell Fuhriman
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Steven Feldman [hidden email]
Cc: Conference Dev [hidden email]; Eli Adam [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

 

I might flip Eli’s formulation a bit — say 90% to OSGeo on the first $100k, then 50/50 thereafter, or perhaps some “bonus structure”. If the primary goal is to help OSGeo, then the incentive structure should reflect that.

 

As far as cost, it’s actually pretty hard to bring the cost down for a conference in the 1000-attendee size. The biggest knobs you have to turn are catering costs (i.e. don’t have food) and/or to bring in more sponsorship to subside the cost.

 

For most attendees, the cost of travel is the bulk of the cost of attending. So while it certainly can make a difference at the margins, I’m not sure it’s the driving factor for most people. (This would actually be an excellent question to survey past and prospective attendees — having data around this would really help our decision-making.)

 

FWIW, I know I’m often the lone voice in the wilderness on the topic, but this is a good case for investing in an individual, even if part time, to help find sponsorship dollars. It’s a very specific skillset, one which the LOCs may often not have, and one that would really benefit from building and maintaining long-term relationships in a way the current model of throwing all new people in the mix every year doesn’t.

 

More sponsorship money = more money for OSGeo and cheaper costs for attendees.

 

Darrell

 

 



On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:15 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities. 

 

Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.

 

We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.

______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

 

 


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Darrell Fuhriman
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:22 PM Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I might flip Eli’s formulation a bit — say 90% to OSGeo on the first $100k, then 50/50 thereafter, or perhaps some “bonus structure”. If the primary goal is to help OSGeo, then the incentive structure should reflect that.
>

I'm in favor of "capping out" the total to the local chapter.  Unless
a local chapter has a particular method for spending the funds in some
useful way, I don't think that more than $10-30k is useful.  We should
evaluate any formulation with various surplus amounts ($10,000,
$60,000, $120,000, and $200,000+) to see how they play out and what
we're trying to achieve.

> As far as cost, it’s actually pretty hard to bring the cost down for a conference in the 1000-attendee size. The biggest knobs you have to turn are catering costs (i.e. don’t have food) and/or to bring in more sponsorship to subside the cost.
>

I think this is largely why we've not seen substantially different
proposals.  ~1,000 attendee conferences at a venue with catering more
or less sets the cost.

> For most attendees, the cost of travel is the bulk of the cost of attending. So while it certainly can make a difference at the margins, I’m not sure it’s the driving factor for most people. (This would actually be an excellent question to survey past and prospective attendees — having data around this would really help our decision-making.)
>
> FWIW, I know I’m often the lone voice in the wilderness on the topic, but this is a good case for investing in an individual, even if part time, to help find sponsorship dollars. It’s a very specific skillset, one which the LOCs may often not have, and one that would really benefit from building and maintaining long-term relationships in a way the current model of throwing all new people in the mix every year doesn’t.
>

I think that there is more support for this than just you.  To tie
this back to our budget discussion, we could put a placeholder number
in for such a position and see where we go with it.  I'm in favor of
this but maybe we should start a new thread for that.

Best regards, Eli


> More sponsorship money = more money for OSGeo and cheaper costs for attendees.
>
> Darrell
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:15 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> We should be clear that granting permission to host a global FOSS4G comes with an expectation of returning a material surplus to OSGeo to fund all of our activities.
>
> Eli’s suggestion sets a formula which helps to grow the local OSGeo chapter and channels the bulk of the surplus back to OSGeo.
>
> We may also wish to discuss how we balance the desire for a low cost of conference pass and a substantial travel grant programme to encourage accessibility with the need to generate surpluses to fund OSGeo. In the past ticket prices of $650 plus strong sponsorship have delivered surpluses of $100,000-200,000, unless we can increase conference sponsorship lower ticket prices will reduce the surplus.
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

delawen
I'm trying to avoid jumping in this thread as I am a very interested party here. I don't want to influence much the general rules for future events based on what we need right now.

But consider this:

I'm in favor of "capping out" the total to the local chapter.  Unless
a local chapter has a particular method for spending the funds in some
useful way, I don't think that more than $10-30k is useful. 

Having the funds in advance to be able to organize a regional and local event without having to worry when then money is going to be available on the bank account is a huge relief and helps a lot on the sustainability of the regional events. Maybe the question here is if we want a centralized OSGeo fund system or we rely on the local/regional chapters to be able to handle funds. Both options have advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, probably a profit of 200k is too much for a regional/local chapter.  And maybe 30k looks like a lot if you are thinking on organizing small events. But for example, when it comes to a regional event that wants to also have a TGP, that money in advance is key to be able to do it properly. Even when you are sure you will have profit, tickets and sponsors are incomings that can came too late.

And I know what you are going to tell me: we can ask for money anytime so OSGeo gives us seed money or donations when needed, we don't need to store it ourselves. But right now I'm thinking on my particular case, where each transfer to/from Argentina is painful due to currency exchange. Giving money back to OSGeo in 2021 to ask again for money later means losing money on each conversion. Painful. And my "poor person" mindset quickly jumps into "better leave the money sitting here, we have time to give it back to OSGeo later if needed".

IMHO we should prioritize empowering regional and local events and leaving "traces" of the OSGeo budget on different places can help a lot here. I bet Argentina is not the only case where fees or currency exchanges or similar "eats" a portion of the cake. Maybe others just assumed it as normal and didn't consider they can store part of that money instead of paying extra fees? The important thing is to use the money to keep OSGeo running. If it is centralized or not... I don't know that is best.

TL;DR: Each chapter will have its own reasons to ask for a different profit percentage. Guidelines are good, but write them in stone may discourage some locations.

And I disappear again.

Cheers!
María.

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

Re: Need to define rules for %age of backflow of FOSS4G surplus

Till Adams-3

Hi Steven,

I like the idea - we can connect that with Eli's idea and say, okay, you as "other regions LOC" can have a bigger part of the share, if you clearly define what you are going to do with the money. This might also catch up somehow with Maria's ideas and partly de-centralize OSGeo, where it is appropriate. I think that in most regions of Europe and NA communities already have been established, so if we split here between Europe/NA and "other regions" that makes sense to me.

@Steven - for sure, I will take our ideas to the board, but I think that we as CC should define an idea, that is as clear as possible and then ask the board for acceptance.

The problem I see is, that we are not really at the point, where we as CC can say "okay, this is our rough proposal", or is anybody able to sum up the extract of our discussion yet?

Till



Am 07.01.20 um 11:33 schrieb Steven Feldman:
Perhaps we could consider a different approach for the European and North American events to the “Other Regions” particularly where the host country or region needs support to grow the local community (of course there could also be a case for growing a local community in NA or Europe).

l think the challenge that we face is that we already have a lower expectation of surpluses from the event in “Other Regions”, if we now leave a larger share of the surplus in the region we will return very little to OSGeo in one of the 3 years of the FOSS4G cycle. I don’t know what proportion of OSGeo’s income comes from FOSS4G so I cannot guage the impact of reduced surpluses from FOSS4G. That may be a risk that the board is willing to accept, it is not for Conference Committee to decide. Till could you raise this topic with the board and provide some guidance to CC
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 7 Jan 2020, at 10:00, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm trying to avoid jumping in this thread as I am a very interested party here. I don't want to influence much the general rules for future events based on what we need right now.

But consider this:

I'm in favor of "capping out" the total to the local chapter.  Unless
a local chapter has a particular method for spending the funds in some
useful way, I don't think that more than $10-30k is useful. 

Having the funds in advance to be able to organize a regional and local event without having to worry when then money is going to be available on the bank account is a huge relief and helps a lot on the sustainability of the regional events. Maybe the question here is if we want a centralized OSGeo fund system or we rely on the local/regional chapters to be able to handle funds. Both options have advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, probably a profit of 200k is too much for a regional/local chapter.  And maybe 30k looks like a lot if you are thinking on organizing small events. But for example, when it comes to a regional event that wants to also have a TGP, that money in advance is key to be able to do it properly. Even when you are sure you will have profit, tickets and sponsors are incomings that can came too late.

And I know what you are going to tell me: we can ask for money anytime so OSGeo gives us seed money or donations when needed, we don't need to store it ourselves. But right now I'm thinking on my particular case, where each transfer to/from Argentina is painful due to currency exchange. Giving money back to OSGeo in 2021 to ask again for money later means losing money on each conversion. Painful. And my "poor person" mindset quickly jumps into "better leave the money sitting here, we have time to give it back to OSGeo later if needed".

IMHO we should prioritize empowering regional and local events and leaving "traces" of the OSGeo budget on different places can help a lot here. I bet Argentina is not the only case where fees or currency exchanges or similar "eats" a portion of the cake. Maybe others just assumed it as normal and didn't consider they can store part of that money instead of paying extra fees? The important thing is to use the money to keep OSGeo running. If it is centralized or not... I don't know that is best.

TL;DR: Each chapter will have its own reasons to ask for a different profit percentage. Guidelines are good, but write them in stone may discourage some locations.

And I disappear again.

Cheers!
María.
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
12