Dropping all cc: except for asia-summit-list. I figure Emily can
collect all our thoughts and respond to Ernest for us.
On 07/15/10 11:21 AM, Ernest Chiang wrote:
Dear Pockey,
Here I summarized the feedbacks of our team members, and try to organize
our inputs below. Hope it can help both teams to exchange inputs and
possible ways on funding/budgeting related topics :)
First, *four* clarifications before inputs:
0. We trust GASC's good will toward the co-event. It is ok if after a
best effort GASC can't get additional funding. We'll survive.
This is nice to hear.
1. The request for additional contribution is mostly due to imbalance,
and less on overbooking. We sensed this issue 5 weeks ago when the
raised fund was US$21.7K : US$1K and the projected total cost was US$30K
[1], but we had hopes that GASC would eventually raise adequate fund. We
were overwhelmed with talk over-submission, program, sponsors and
registration overbooking to come back to this issue until July 10.
[1] IRC meeting minutes 20100525
It is unfortunate that we have not been more successful at raising funds
via sponsors, but the economy has not been ideal and COSCUP has more of
an advantage in working with local sponsors in Taiwain.
At any rate, we never had any sort of agreement that the funds needed
to be balanced in any way, did we?
I can respect them pushing us to raise more money, but it seems
inappropriate if they are trying to suggest it is some sort of
requirement in order to split funds as we previously agreed in good
faith, or for any other reason.
2. This is a request toward GASC, not the GNOME Foundation.
We should make it clear that GNOME.Asia (GASC) is not a separate
organization from The GNOME Foundation. GASC is a group of GNOME
Foundation volunteers who represent The GNOME Foundation.
We'd like to
see GASC's effort toward splitting the shared cost in a ratio not too
far away from the 61% : 39% time slot allocation, which fairly
represents the shared cost. It doesn't matter to COSCUP Team whether
GASC gets it from the GNOME Foundation or elsewhere.
While it does seem fair to split the funding by time slot allocation,
we never had any sort of agreement requiring this sort of balance.
Also, it does not seem fair to impose this sort of ratio on the funding
if GASC/The GNOME Foundation has no say in how the budget is spent.
It seems COSCUP made the decision to raise the cost of the event at
the last minute by accepting overbookings. COSCUP has not been willing
to allow GASC/The GNOME Foundation much input in whether the money
should be spent or how. The GASC/GNOME Foundation community has already
stated that we would prefer to lower costs, and they have not been
willing to entertain or discuss this. Instead they seem to suggest we
are insulting them by simply asking questions about whether we can cut
costs by doing things like reducing the number of attendees to the
previously agreed upon numbers.
This does not seem to be fair to me, so I am not sure I agree with
Ernest when he says this "fairly represents the shared cost."
3. We don't need to rush to get the fund before the event. We can use
the COSCUP reserve to help the cash flow. It proves the necessity of
sufficient reserve. We'll be fine if the fund can be sent to us in
October.
What fund is Ernest talking about?
B. COSCUP Team raised US$42K with its own cost of US$10K, including
US$4.9K for travel expenses of quality speakers.
What is meant by "US$42K with its own cost of US$10K, including
US$4.9K for travel expenses"?
C. As it stands now, the contribution toward shared cost is US$32K +
US$5K which is already sufficient.
Does he mean that COSCUP raised $32K and GAS is $5K?
Now comes 3 options for you to consider.
Opiton 1. If GASC contributes US$10K more, the ratio is not too far from
61% : 39%. We'll have surplus and each side can take some fund back
after the event is over.
Ernest said that he liked the idea of "matching". Does this mean that
if GASC contributes US$10K that COSCUP is also planning to match that
amount so the funds will go up by US$20K?
Option 2. Or, to make it simpler, GASC can contribute US$7.5K more to
make it US$12.5K, and COSCUP Team contributes US$19.5K. The shared cost
is fully covered 61% : 39% and there will be no surplus.
This confuses me. Option 1 seemed to indicate that by GAS contributing
US$10K more that we would be at a 61% : 39% split. It cannot also be
true that if GASC contributes $7.5K more and COSCUP contributes
US$19.5K that we also have a 61% : 39% split.
At any rate, I don't understand what these options mean. Perhaps we
could get clarification.
Whatever amount
COSCUP Team raised in addition to US$19.5K belongs to COSCUP Team.
It seems that Ernest is suggesting that if we do this that we will not
split the profits at all. If so, this does not seem a fair option, or
what we previously agreed to.
Option 3. If that's still difficult, COSCUP Team can agree to fully
absorb the extra cost of expanding to 1000 people. GASC can contribute
US$5.9K more to make it US$10.9K as 39% of US$28K. COSCUP Team
contributes US$17.1K, and the rest of what COSCUP Team raised belong to
COSCUP Team.
How is this different from option #2 except that we contribute US$5.9K
instead of US$7.5K?
These numbers seem somewhat arbitrary to me. What if we can contribute
an amount, but less than $5.9K?
p.s. The "confrontational" tone Brian pointed out was due to repeated
disrespect toward the COSCUP Team's knowledge of local environment that
pingooo saw in the IRC meeting. pingooo had to be straight in the
meeting, but we're putting it aside for now.
I do not understand why Ernest feels the need to make this issue
personal, or why he seems to suggest that the GASC team is wholly
responsible for the communication problems we have had recently. I do
not think that making these issues personal helps in any way.
p.p.s. We don't want to look too deep into brand values. Interested
parties can try to look for evidence of the brand values of
GNOME.Asia/GNOME and COSCUP in Taiwan.
I was not trying to suggest that we look too deeply into this. I only
was trying to highlight that GNOME is bringing some intangible assets
to the event (the brand, speakers, energy, etc.), and hopefully these
are appreciated and respected as well as the money.
Brian
_______________________________________________
asia-summit-list mailing list
asia-summit-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/asia-summit-list
