<div dir="ltr">Thanks for all your comments! I hate to see all our hard work go to waste and am looking forward to figuring out a way to make this work for sponsors, conference organizers, and the PSF. I've attached the most recent high res file.<div><br></div><div>Betsy</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mal@python.org" target="_blank">mal@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 12.04.2016 04:09, Nick Coghlan wrote:<br>
> On 12 April 2016 at 06:20, Betsy Waliszewski <<a href="mailto:betsy@python.org">betsy@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Hi team,<br>
>><br>
>> After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold<br>
>> until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design services<br>
>> so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the conference<br>
>> is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project.<br>
><br>
> I agree that makes sense from a staff focus perspective, but would it<br>
> still be acceptable for us to pitch the prospectus directly in its<br>
> current form?<br>
<br>
</span>Sure, why not ?<br>
<br>
The current form is what we had discussed. I suspect that<br>
when opening up the discussion again, we'll either end up with<br>
something that will need a new version of the brochure or<br>
we come to the conclusion that the bundle idea is not<br>
really working out, in which case, we'd stop putting more<br>
effort into this.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> I'm currently trying to explain to Red Hat's Open Source<br>
> & Standards team the differences between working with a public<br>
> interest charity and trade associations run in the interests of<br>
> sponsor members, as well as asking if a fee waiver for a year or two<br>
> would impact their current attitude of "We don't want to pay a modest<br>
> admin fee to help a public interest charity run a self-supporting<br>
> regional conference funding program". However, Red Hat's annual<br>
> budgeting cycle runs March -> February, so if we put the idea entirely<br>
> on hold from the PSF side until July or so (allowing a month for<br>
> post-PyCon wind down activities and bringing the new Board up to<br>
> speed), it would make more sense for me to defer that argument until<br>
> next financial year.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Nick.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Betsy<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan <<a href="mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com">ncoghlan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 15 March 2016 at 04:10, Betsy Waliszewski <<a href="mailto:betsy@python.org">betsy@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> Hi Nick,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The PDF I<br>
>>>> sent around is our working document.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Ah, nice - that *is* very attractive!<br>
>>><br>
>>>> That being said, we do need to<br>
>>>> incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and<br>
>>>> whatever<br>
>>>> discounts we decide to offer.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Right, at the moment it isn't clear what the benefits are relative to<br>
>>> sponsoring directly, nor where the 15% program administration charge<br>
>>> is going to go. It may be helpful if there were a couple of sections<br>
>>> like:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Program Sponsor Benefits:<br>
>>> * year-round acknowledgement on <a href="http://python.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">python.org</a> in addition to any<br>
>>> acknowledgements on individual conference sites<br>
>>> * single point of financial contact for 10+ conferences<br>
>>> * consistent financial arrangements year-over-year<br>
>>> * delegated responsibility for compliance with financial regulations<br>
>>> in recipient countries<br>
>>><br>
>>> Program Administration Activities:<br>
>>> * disbursing funds to participating conferences in compliance with<br>
>>> local and international regulations<br>
>>> * advising community-led conferences on working effectively with sponsors<br>
>>> * advising sponsors on working effectively with community-led conferences<br>
>>> * advising community-led conferences on responsibly managing financial<br>
>>> risks<br>
>>> * promoting and facilitating the addition of further community-led<br>
>>> conferences to the program<br>
>>> * collection and presentation of sponsorship details from<br>
>>> participating conferences in a standard format<br>
>>><br>
>>> The first suggested point under "sponsor benefits" is a new one, but<br>
>>> something we could do pretty easily that represents a concrete perk<br>
>>> above and beyond sponsoring the individual conferences.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> The challenge is that the only thing we can discount is the admin fee.<br>
>>>> Based<br>
>>>> on my feedback, even if we didn't charge any fees, I'm not convinced<br>
>>>> that<br>
>>>> any companies would take us up on what we're offering in the prospectus.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We have a bit of a chicken & egg problem here - we need conference<br>
>>> organisers to get involved to make the program attractive to sponsors,<br>
>>> but we need sponsors to get involved to make the program attractive to<br>
>>> conference organisers.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Given the somewhat experimental nature of the program, perhaps it<br>
>>> might make sense to offer a straight up fee waiver for the first year<br>
>>> or two for the inaugural sponsors? That would mean a greater<br>
>>> speculative investment on the PSF's part, but it could potentially get<br>
>>> us past the bootstrapping stage, and provide the initial impetus<br>
>>> needed to create a virtuous cycle of sponsor participation attracting<br>
>>> conference participation, which makes the program more attractive to<br>
>>> future sponsors, which makes it more obviously beneficial for<br>
>>> conferences to participate, etc...<br>
>>><br>
>>> It would also mean we could be up front with the inaugural sponsors<br>
>>> that the 15% figure is a preliminary estimate for what we think would<br>
>>> be needed to make this program self-sustaining rather than<br>
>>> cross-subsidised by other PSF revenue raising activities, and we<br>
>>> wouldn't actually start charging the admin fee until we had a year or<br>
>>> two of real data to use to calibrate the appropriate amount.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we don't have<br>
>>>> a<br>
>>>> lot of data to look at.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Right, and a number of those are companies where their list of<br>
>>> sponsored Python conferences is already longer than the list in the<br>
>>> prospectus, so the value proposition for them is different from that<br>
>>> for organisations where the program will hopefully let them expand<br>
>>> their reach beyond what they could readily manage on their own.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> I'm very willing to add copy to our working doc, but I need help with<br>
>>>> the<br>
>>>> wording. A page could be added before the "Build Your Own Bundle" page<br>
>>>> that<br>
>>>> shows the offer that is not "custom" or a la carte and the discount.<br>
>>>> Right<br>
>>>> now, we're only showing a custom option.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Postponing the bundles to the 2nd year of the program is still<br>
>>> attractive from the point of view of keeping things as simple as we<br>
>>> can this time around. There are also other ways we could structure the<br>
>>> discounts, such as on a "length of continuous participation" basis<br>
>>> (since a sponsor organisation is likely to require more handholding in<br>
>>> the first year than they are in subsequent years), or in terms of<br>
>>> sheer number of conferences sponsored.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So despite my advocacy for the "bundle discount" approach, I'm<br>
>>> becoming more of a fan of the "as thanks for helping us launch the<br>
>>> prospectus, first year sponsors will have their admin fees waived for<br>
>>> the first two years the international prospectus is in operation". We<br>
>>> likely do need to be explicit that the PSF doesn't plan to subsidise<br>
>>> sponsor's administration costs indefinitely, though - we're just<br>
>>> prepared to do it for a couple of years in order to gather the data we<br>
>>> need to figure out the actual costs of running the program.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards,<br>
>>> Nick.<br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Betsy<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan <<a href="mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com">ncoghlan@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 12 March 2016 at 23:24, M.-A. Lemburg <<a href="mailto:mal@python.org">mal@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>> On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> As far as covering costs goes, I think an important aspect of that<br>
>>>>>>> will be to be clear that bundling carries an expectation of reduced<br>
>>>>>>> customisation of benefits, at least at the PSF level - hence the fee<br>
>>>>>>> discounts.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which fee discounts you are referring to here.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I mean the proposal for distinct a la carte/regional/global rates for<br>
>>>>> the administration overhead - my working assumption from the start has<br>
>>>>> always been that conferences get their normal sponsorship amounts, and<br>
>>>>> we'd figure out some other way to cover the PSF's costs (whether that<br>
>>>>> was cross-subsidisation from PyCon US, covering it out of general<br>
>>>>> sponsorships, or applying an additional percentage to the bundles to<br>
>>>>> cover costs).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The reason I specifically like the "15/7.5/3" administration charge<br>
>>>>> structure is that:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> * a self-sustaining program is preferable, since that provides more<br>
>>>>> scope for future hiring & grant making<br>
>>>>> * 50% and 80% are substantial enough discounts for potential sponsors<br>
>>>>> to appreciate them<br>
>>>>> * 20/10/4 feels too high, 10/5/2 feels too low, so 15/7.5/3 splits the<br>
>>>>> difference<br>
>>>>> * I except many of the PSF's costs in staff time to be incurred per<br>
>>>>> sponsor, rather than per event (registering with their supplier<br>
>>>>> management if they're not already PSF or PyCon sponsors, getting to<br>
>>>>> know the right points of contact within their event management<br>
>>>>> organisation, getting to know what they're generally interested in as<br>
>>>>> sponsor benefits, etc)<br>
>>>>> * for sponsors that opt for a bundle over a la carte, I'd still expect<br>
>>>>> their typical engagement with the smaller regional events to be low<br>
>>>>> (since they often won't have an on-site presence there - unless they<br>
>>>>> were planning to be involved in the event anyway, the cost in staff<br>
>>>>> time and travel would likely exceed the sponsorship)<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Consider the global Platinum sponsorship, for example - the admin fee<br>
>>>>> discount there ends up being just over $9000. Compared to a more<br>
>>>>> selective a la carte sponsorship, that's likely going to mean a<br>
>>>>> Platinum sponsorship for each of the 3 or 4 lowest cost conferences<br>
>>>>> participating in the prospectus - those are often also going to be the<br>
>>>>> ones where the return on investment for large sponsors is smallest,<br>
>>>>> but the potential return on investment for the PSF in terms of growing<br>
>>>>> the Python community is highest (it's much easier for a 150 person<br>
>>>>> conference to grow to 300 people than it is for a 750 person<br>
>>>>> conference to grow to 1500).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Along those lines, I've posted a couple of comments in the document<br>
>>>>> suggesting a change in the way the administration charges for the<br>
>>>>> bundles are presented.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Currently, the discounts are baked into the percentage used to<br>
>>>>> calculate the the administration charge line item. I believe it would<br>
>>>>> be preferable to always list the administration charge at the a la<br>
>>>>> carte rate, and then explicitly list the fee discount as a separate<br>
>>>>> line. Using the global Platinum sponsorship as an example again,<br>
>>>>> that's currently presented as:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590<br>
>>>>> Program administration charge (3%): 2298<br>
>>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78888<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I'd suggest instead presenting it as:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590<br>
>>>>> Program administration charge (15%): 11488<br>
>>>>> Administration charge discount (80%): -9191<br>
>>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78887<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> (In that particular case, the rounding works out slightly differently,<br>
>>>>> but that's at most a dollar either way)<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>>> Nick.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> Nick Coghlan | <a href="mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com">ncoghlan@gmail.com</a> | Brisbane, Australia<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Betsy Waliszewski<br>
>>>> Python Software Foundation<br>
>>>> Event Coordinator / Administrator<br>
>>>> @betswaliszewski<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Nick Coghlan | <a href="mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com">ncoghlan@gmail.com</a> | Brisbane, Australia<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Betsy Waliszewski<br>
>> Python Software Foundation<br>
>> Event Coordinator / Administrator<br>
>> @betswaliszewski<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Marc-Andre Lemburg<br>
Director<br>
Python Software Foundation<br>
<a href="http://www.python.org/psf/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.python.org/psf/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.malemburg.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.malemburg.com/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Betsy Waliszewski<div>Python Software Foundation</div><div>Event Coordinator / Administrator</div><div>@betswaliszewski</div></div></div>
</div>