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 <alexgle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey John and Adam >> >> I raised the potential for a split in the community, only as a risk, not >> as a threat or a potential or imminent thing. >> >> My view is that we’re a coherent and broadly cohesive group. My point was >> only that if we (OSGeo Oceania's Board) didn’t support this initiative, >> that other paths might be pursued. >> > _______________________________________________ > Oceania mailing list > Oceania@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
