@Alex Leith <alexgle...@gmail.com> can we get confirmation that the Good Mojo spend was actually $0. I agree that we should spend it how it was intended, as doing otherwise undermines our ability to collect interest/issue specific funds in future.
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 23:57, John Bryant <johnwbry...@gmail.com> wrote: > *Re: Good Mojo* - when the board decides how to spend this fund, be > conscious this money was collected from community contributors with the > understanding it would be used to support > diversity/accessibility/sustainability initiatives related to the > conference. See the 2018 [1] and 2019 [2] conference websites to see how > this was communicated to contributors at the time. I'm sure there's leeway > to re-interpret how the funds can be used (eg. outside of the conference) > but I believe it should be done very carefully, and communicated clearly to > respect the contributors. I'm not sure microgrants would be an effective > way to spend this money, without revising the microgrant guidelines to more > specifically address diversity/accessibility/sustainability. > > *Re: conference* - I understand conference planning isn't very far along > yet, but I urge OSGeo Oceania to take an active role in any sponsorship > drive that might take place this year, and get started as early as > possible. It makes more sense to me that sponsor relationships would be > developed and nurtured over years, rather than handing them off to an LOC > to start anew each year. Re: financial risk, a strong sponsorship drive > seems to me the clearest path to mitigating that risk. > > *Re: a deficit of $25k* - if it means the 2018 & 2019 conference surplus > funds are finally re-invested in the community, I'm all for it. My opinion > is that the money is there to be spent, and if it's not replenished, so be > it. This conference/organisation started without a cent to its name and > made a big impact regardless. Community engagement is far more valuable > than money sitting in the bank! > > [1] https://2018.foss4g-oceania.org/attend/good-mojo-program.html > [2] https://2019.foss4g-oceania.org/sponsor > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 at 11:55, Greg Lauer <gregory.la...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Following on from the comments received so far... >> >> *Conference* >> >> We have not yet received a budget from the Conference Committee so it it >> is difficult to allocate a budget. I suspect we just carried over the >> proposed budget from last year. I am in agreement with JB's comments that >> there is opportunity to gain sponsorship etc. but at this time this is not >> in place. We do need an alternative source(s) of revenue. Sponsorship is >> one, grants are another. All involve significant amount of effort on an >> ongoing basis to continually engage with prospective entities. My >> personal opinion is that we illustrate the worst case scenario, allowing >> a certain degree of flexibility. Although the last conference nearly broke >> even, every conference is a financial risk to OSGeo Oceania and I feel feel >> the budget needs to reflect that. With the complications of Covid I feel we >> still need to take a cautious approach for 21/22. Would welcome further >> discussion on this as it is a major budget item. >> >> *Good Mojo* >> >> As I understand it (Alex feel free to chip in) we have ~$8000 'tagged' as >> for Good Mojo. I am not sure why we have tagged it $0, but I suspect that >> has to do with that Good Mojo Funds have been used to fund various >> activities that fall under other budget activities (for example Women's >> Breakfasts) So to be clear it is not missing. Maybe there is a better >> way to illustrate this within the budget? We have budgeted for Outreach >> and community support. Maybe make available some Good Mojo funds to this >> or Microgrants etc. >> >> *Microgrants* >> >> Eli presented an update to the Board and if I understand correctly we >> have 2 grants approved out of 7 applications (with 2 declined and 3 >> awaiting more information). Great to see the momentum growing. Yes early >> days but agree that budget should be revised for this. Maybe the best >> way to manage this is for the Microgrant Committee to submit a budget >> request? Then this can be considered as part of the budget. >> >> *SIGs* >> >> We have proposed a budget allocation of $2,500 to each SIG. (This is >> indicated in the 21/22 tab). As per Martin's comments I feel we should >> provide 'seed' funding to the SIG's on an annual basis, until such time >> that they are self-sufficient. The SIG's have been set up in such a way >> that any spending is transparent and can be wholly managed by the SIG >> committee. I would like us moving away from the Board having to authorise >> minor expenditure for SIG's and have them manage directly. By making >> available a pool of money to the SIG's the committees can mange in what >> ever way they see fit. >> >> I feel the key issue for OSGeo Members is that we are predicting a >> deficit of up to $25,000 in 21/22 and are we happy to support that? We >> budgeted a similar deficit in 20/21 and it looks like an actual deficit of >> $6,000. >> >> Please keep the comments and thoughts rolling in! >> >> Greg >> >> On 3/27/2021 4:14:13 AM, Edoardo Neerhut <eneer...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for fantastic feedback. >> >> *Conference* >> I had similar thoughts on the conference to you John. From memory we >> agreed to keep tabs on how conference plans develop over the next month or >> so and incorporate that into conference expectations. >> >> *Good Mojo* >> Keen to hear from Alex here. I have been shamefully ignorant to the Good >> Mojo fund of late. >> >> *Microgrants* >> I think it's reasonable to increase this given it will be the second >> financial year of microgrants. This could be one we asterix and review >> monthly before we finalise the budget and allocate a final figure. It'd be >> great to see how current funds are used over the next couple of months. >> >> *SIGs* >> If new SIGs emerge, couldn't they be covered with the funds Outreach and >> Community support? That's what happened this financial year, and then the >> SIGs can get dedicated funding once they're established. >> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 22:14, Martin Tomko <tom...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: >> >>> I agree here with John, >>> >>> I think we can be more optimistic than in the catastrophic plans we had >>> mid last year, although I agree that being cautious is good. >>> >>> I would also like to see a further expansion of the local outreach and >>> community support/SIGs and potentially supporting transaltion of local >>> academic OS innovations to the OS ecosystem ,as we have canvased over a >>> year ago with John ( but then COVID hit and we could not take off). I do >>> not see space for this, including any potential support for SIGs (I >>> understand they should be self-financing in the longer term, but there may >>> be need for some start up funds for new ones) – working groups are, as we >>> know, a different story ( Communication and Finance and Membership). >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you all for the great job in planning ahead, great to see the >>> community keeping momentum ( and apologies for radio silence for a while)! >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Oceania <oceania-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of John >>> Bryant <johnwbry...@gmail.com> >>> *Date: *Friday, 26 March 2021 at 3:57 pm >>> *To: *Oceania community <oceania@lists.osgeo.org> >>> *Subject: *Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Budget for FY 2021/2022 >>> >>> Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to budget planning. I have a >>> few comments/questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> *1. Conference* >>> >>> >>> >>> The proposed budget includes an AUD $5000 loss for the conference, which >>> doesn't align with past experience. Even last year, when plans were >>> derailed mid-year and we had to create a new plan on the fly, we still >>> turned a small profit overall [1], despite minimal focus on sponsorship. >>> >>> >>> >>> FOSS4G 2021 (global) will be fully online, and they're running a >>> relatively successful sponsorship drive. If we are running another hybrid >>> conference, it feels like there's potential to find sponsorship. Last >>> year's event was the largest in-person event we've ever organised, in terms >>> of overall attendance, and with that experience behind us, I think there's >>> a significant value proposition for sponsors. Since conference revenue has >>> been the predominant source of income for OO, I feel this is a sensible >>> place to focus. The assumption there won't be any significant income feels >>> like a self-fulfilling prophecy. >>> >>> >>> >>> *2. Good Mojo* >>> >>> >>> >>> A question about Good Mojo expenditure: why reduce it to zero? I guess >>> there's still ~$8k in the Good Mojo fund since the 2020-2021 budget has 0 >>> under actual. I suggest this should be used, the people and orgs that >>> contributed to it in 2018 and 2019 would probably like to see their >>> contributions put to use. If there is an in-person event then maybe >>> reviving the Travel Grant Program would make sense. Hubs could be enabled >>> to have a local impact using these funds. >>> >>> >>> >>> *3. Microgrants* >>> >>> >>> >>> Last, re: Microgrants, I feel $2k won't be enough. There has been a lot >>> of interest in the first few weeks of the program. $2k will only fund ~8 >>> grants over the whole year. I suspect we could increase this to $6k, which >>> would average 2 grants per month. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174P83K_AnDHrH-HbsJmAdXQfrdbTR9ElVcHtxQ1lrWw/edit#gid=1331367998 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 20:56, Greg Lauer <gregory.la...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> >>> >>> The OSGeo Oceania Finance committee met earlier this week, and one of >>> the items discussed is preparing a budget for FY 21/22. Once we have done >>> this we will forward it to the OSGeo Oceania Board to approve. We plan to >>> present to the Board at the April meeting in approx. 4 weeks. >>> >>> >>> >>> We would welcome input and discussion from OSGeo Oceania members and >>> community around the budget. You can review 20/21 and the proposed 21/22 >>> budget at >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cbd3Rt5R688qrZ3eTCHxpRZ8HbII358_1UARf3m5qBs/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> >>> Too much? Too little? What should we be spending money on? Potential >>> income sources? >>> >>> >>> >>> The key issue is that it is unlikely we will have any significant income >>> for FY 21/22 as the Conference Working group is planning another hybrid >>> virtual conference. We would hope this would not be the case in FY 22/23. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are looking forward to your input >>> >>> >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg, Alex, Dionne and Ed >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oceania mailing list >>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oceania mailing list >>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >>> >> _______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list >> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oceania mailing list >> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >> > _______________________________________________ > Oceania mailing list > Oceania@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >
_______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania