Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May
HI Alex, Elisa, all
Page 17 of the FOSS4G RfP document outlines how to ask for seed funding
from OSGeo [1]. The OSGeo conference committee are more than happy to have
a discussion, as is the OSGeo board. In OSGeo Oceania's case there would be
a discussion about financial risks (you have money in the bank, why ask for
$$ from the global community? - to which OO could lay out its current
forecasts and say OK yes now, next year is unknown and we want to ensure
OSGeo Oceania stays alive and the conference is doable at the same time)
The concept of OSGeo acting as a seed fund supplier is documented as
raised, so it doesn't need deeper digging. Here's the quote again:
"Possible to ask OSGeo to be the backer instead of OO? Alex: risk of losing
money is basically zero, the bigger risk is that we split the community and
upset those who have worked on this."
I understand that minutes don't capture nuance well, that was the point of
this line of questioning - and yes, I did ask around a little bit before
writing anything out. I also think it's pretty natural to read the
statement above and think.. hmm. why is this being said / recorded? It
seems completely normal that OSGeo Oceania provide organisational / legal
backing ("fiscal sponsorship") - which was one of the core "whys" of OO to
begin with. And the finance concerns raised in the minutes could be reduced
by asking the global community for support - which is core to OSGeo's
reason for being.
A third path not yet seen is removing some financial concerns by OO
committing some of the seed funding, and asking OSGeo for the balance -
that way giving OO room to consider the scale of its contribution as
unknown unknowns in mid 2024 become more known as 2025 approaches. There
are really no such absolutes as "this way or else", it's all a discussion
and every FOSS4G has different needs - the core criteria is being proactive
about understanding needs as early as possible and being open / upfront
about how things are working out. So maybe an idea for OO / AKL to keep in
the pocket as things progress...
All the best,
Adam
[1]
https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/FOSS4G2025-request-for-proposal.pdf
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May
Hi all, I'm briefly adding my two cents on this discussion, as I was too part of it 'live' and I think that only reading the minutes could lend to some misinterpretations: what I understood during the debate was Alex just pointing out that if OO decides to not support at all the conference, that could lend to the community not being satisfied by the decision, as many would love to have the international conference in the region, and the local committee to go ahead without OO, which could be seen as a 'break' in the community. That, for me, was just a 'worst case scenario' kind of thing, not something certain to happen. Moreover, I felt that nobody in the board was opposed to supporting the bidding at all, just rightly very worried that we could not sustain a financial loss, and that would bring the organisation to an end. So yes, we did discuss a lot of 'worst case scenarios' as I think we should, but in the end we decided to throw our full support to the local committee, even with some reserves about the budget and especially attendance numbers. Anyway, I think the board would still be very interested to see if there are ways to discuss with OSGeo for financial aid, as Adam pointed out, in case our bidding is successful. What does the local committee think of it? Adam, could you give us more information about this? And finally, I really want to thank our deputy chair John, who after every single board meeting takes the time to review, clean and prepare the minutes so everybody can access them quickly. I think it's very important to have them out for you all to read and I'm glad they do spark some interesting discussions! Cheers, Elisa Il giorno mer 22 mag 2024 alle ore 09:08 Alex Leith via Oceania < oceania@lists.osgeo.org> ha scritto: > Hi Adam > > The minutes are very brief and don't really catch the nuance of the > discussion, but those are the broad strokes yes. > > If you look at the four motions, we (the Board) were careful to first > consider if we were comfortable being fiscal sponsors, and therefore > providing seed funding. There was a lengthy discussion about this specific > topic. My point was if OO aren't going to provide support, in terms of > fiscal sponsorship (i.e., taking on the risk of a loss) then the local > organising committee would need to find another organisation to do this (to > be the bank). In that case, OO would not be party to the organising of the > event. The sponsor would be OSGeo and the fiscal sponsor would be some > other entity, by necessity. And my point was this would potentially lead to > a split in our community, which would be a really bad thing. > > Also, this was me pointing out this risk, and not the auckland committee. > (Though I am on the organising committee, or course! I wear multiple hats, > and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest was declared.) > > I guess to dig a little deeper, OO could have committed to being the > fiscal sponsor, but not the seed funder, but that's not the decision we > made. And a lot of the contention in the meeting was really about the event > running at a loss and OO not being able to survive that circumstance. > > I hope that clears it up? > > Cheers, > > On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 16:57, Adam Steer via Oceania < > oceania@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> Hi Alex, all >> >> The specific statements of interest are these: >> --- >> ● Q: Possible to ask OSGeo to be the backer instead of OO? Alex: risk of >> losing money is basically zero, the bigger risk is that we split the >> community and upset those who have worked on this. >> Q: How would the community be split? Alex: If OO chooses not to support, >> the LOC would have to find support elsewhere, so OO would not participate >> --- >> >> In a robust and cohsesive community, what specific risks about splitting >> the community do the Auckland bid committee (AKLBC) see in asking OSGeo to >> seed fund a global FOSS4G in the region? >> >> And: why does the AKLBC think that asking OSGeo to seed the event (rather >> than OO) would mean OO would not participate? >> >> In the context of a global FOSS4G in the region it seems straightforward >> that no matter who provided the seed funding, OO would act as a bank and >> provide other support - without needing to take on the whole financial >> risk. >> >> If any other bid committee members want to add some insight, that'd be >> great! A global FOSS4G is a huge undertaking, important for both regional >> and global communities - so we need to be really clear in the communtiy >> about where the kind of statements made at the last board meeting come >> from; and work as a community toward resolution. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> On Mon, May 20, 2024, 14:22 Alex Leith wrote: >> >>> Hey John and Adam >>> >>> I raised the potential for a split in the community, only as a risk, not >>> as a threat or a potential or imminent thing. >>> >>> My view is that we’re a coherent and broadly cohesive group. My point >>> was only that
Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May
Hi Adam The minutes are very brief and don't really catch the nuance of the discussion, but those are the broad strokes yes. If you look at the four motions, we (the Board) were careful to first consider if we were comfortable being fiscal sponsors, and therefore providing seed funding. There was a lengthy discussion about this specific topic. My point was if OO aren't going to provide support, in terms of fiscal sponsorship (i.e., taking on the risk of a loss) then the local organising committee would need to find another organisation to do this (to be the bank). In that case, OO would not be party to the organising of the event. The sponsor would be OSGeo and the fiscal sponsor would be some other entity, by necessity. And my point was this would potentially lead to a split in our community, which would be a really bad thing. Also, this was me pointing out this risk, and not the auckland committee. (Though I am on the organising committee, or course! I wear multiple hats, and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest was declared.) I guess to dig a little deeper, OO could have committed to being the fiscal sponsor, but not the seed funder, but that's not the decision we made. And a lot of the contention in the meeting was really about the event running at a loss and OO not being able to survive that circumstance. I hope that clears it up? Cheers, On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 16:57, Adam Steer via Oceania < oceania@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi Alex, all > > The specific statements of interest are these: > --- > ● Q: Possible to ask OSGeo to be the backer instead of OO? Alex: risk of > losing money is basically zero, the bigger risk is that we split the > community and upset those who have worked on this. > Q: How would the community be split? Alex: If OO chooses not to support, > the LOC would have to find support elsewhere, so OO would not participate > --- > > In a robust and cohsesive community, what specific risks about splitting > the community do the Auckland bid committee (AKLBC) see in asking OSGeo to > seed fund a global FOSS4G in the region? > > And: why does the AKLBC think that asking OSGeo to seed the event (rather > than OO) would mean OO would not participate? > > In the context of a global FOSS4G in the region it seems straightforward > that no matter who provided the seed funding, OO would act as a bank and > provide other support - without needing to take on the whole financial > risk. > > If any other bid committee members want to add some insight, that'd be > great! A global FOSS4G is a huge undertaking, important for both regional > and global communities - so we need to be really clear in the communtiy > about where the kind of statements made at the last board meeting come > from; and work as a community toward resolution. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > On Mon, May 20, 2024, 14:22 Alex Leith wrote: > >> Hey John and Adam >> >> I raised the potential for a split in the community, only as a risk, not >> as a threat or a potential or imminent thing. >> >> My view is that we’re a coherent and broadly cohesive group. My point was >> only that if we (OSGeo Oceania's Board) didn’t support this initiative, >> that other paths might be pursued. >> > ___ > Oceania mailing list > Oceania@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania > -- *Alex Leith* m: +61 419 189 050 https://auspatious.com ___ Oceania mailing list Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May
Hi Alex, all The specific statements of interest are these: --- ● Q: Possible to ask OSGeo to be the backer instead of OO? Alex: risk of losing money is basically zero, the bigger risk is that we split the community and upset those who have worked on this. Q: How would the community be split? Alex: If OO chooses not to support, the LOC would have to find support elsewhere, so OO would not participate --- In a robust and cohsesive community, what specific risks about splitting the community do the Auckland bid committee (AKLBC) see in asking OSGeo to seed fund a global FOSS4G in the region? And: why does the AKLBC think that asking OSGeo to seed the event (rather than OO) would mean OO would not participate? In the context of a global FOSS4G in the region it seems straightforward that no matter who provided the seed funding, OO would act as a bank and provide other support - without needing to take on the whole financial risk. If any other bid committee members want to add some insight, that'd be great! A global FOSS4G is a huge undertaking, important for both regional and global communities - so we need to be really clear in the communtiy about where the kind of statements made at the last board meeting come from; and work as a community toward resolution. Thanks, Adam On Mon, May 20, 2024, 14:22 Alex Leith wrote: > Hey John and Adam > > I raised the potential for a split in the community, only as a risk, not > as a threat or a potential or imminent thing. > > My view is that we’re a coherent and broadly cohesive group. My point was > only that if we (OSGeo Oceania's Board) didn’t support this initiative, > that other paths might be pursued. > ___ Oceania mailing list Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May
Hey John and Adam I raised the potential for a split in the community, only as a risk, not as a threat or a potential or imminent thing. My view is that we’re a coherent and broadly cohesive group. My point was only that if we (OSGeo Oceania's Board) didn’t support this initiative, that other paths might be pursued. I think our community is robust, and our discussion as a board illustrates that robustness. Open, critical discourse with respect and with an open mind is really important, and I think we achieved that. I’m excited about the potential for a global FOSS4G in Oceania, and I hope that we can all lean in behind the OO Board’s endorsement of the bid here! Cheers, *Alex Leith* m: +61 419 189 050 https://auspatious.com On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 9:24 PM, Adam Steer via Oceania < oceania@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi John, all > > Thanks for sharing the meeting minutes, looked like a big discussion! > > Is the Auckland LOC able to provide background / context to comments that > the community would be split / OSGeo Oceania would not participate if the > Auckland LOC sought seed funding from OSGeo? Those are quite strong > statements. > > My experience as a director of OSGeo suggests that the global org is very > supportive of seed funding it's primary global gathering - and open to > negotiation on how profits are distributed (if that was the issue) > > It's important for the community to understand the context and discuss any > perceived or real perceptions about it's cohesiveness. > > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/FOSS4G2025-request-for-proposal.pdf > > > ___ > 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
Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OO board meeting minutes, 10 May
Hi John, all Thanks for sharing the meeting minutes, looked like a big discussion! Is the Auckland LOC able to provide background / context to comments that the community would be split / OSGeo Oceania would not participate if the Auckland LOC sought seed funding from OSGeo? Those are quite strong statements. My experience as a director of OSGeo suggests that the global org is very supportive of seed funding it's primary global gathering - and open to negotiation on how profits are distributed (if that was the issue) It's important for the community to understand the context and discuss any perceived or real perceptions about it's cohesiveness. Thanks, Adam [1] https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/FOSS4G2025-request-for-proposal.pdf ___ Oceania mailing list Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
