From betsy at python.org Mon Apr 11 16:20:23 2016 From: betsy at python.org (Betsy Waliszewski) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:20:23 -0700 Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi team, After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design services so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the conference is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project. Best, Betsy On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 15 March 2016 at 04:10, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The PDF I > > sent around is our working document. > > Ah, nice - that *is* very attractive! > > > That being said, we do need to > > incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and > whatever > > discounts we decide to offer. > > Right, at the moment it isn't clear what the benefits are relative to > sponsoring directly, nor where the 15% program administration charge > is going to go. It may be helpful if there were a couple of sections > like: > > Program Sponsor Benefits: > * year-round acknowledgement on python.org in addition to any > acknowledgements on individual conference sites > * single point of financial contact for 10+ conferences > * consistent financial arrangements year-over-year > * delegated responsibility for compliance with financial regulations > in recipient countries > > Program Administration Activities: > * disbursing funds to participating conferences in compliance with > local and international regulations > * advising community-led conferences on working effectively with sponsors > * advising sponsors on working effectively with community-led conferences > * advising community-led conferences on responsibly managing financial > risks > * promoting and facilitating the addition of further community-led > conferences to the program > * collection and presentation of sponsorship details from > participating conferences in a standard format > > The first suggested point under "sponsor benefits" is a new one, but > something we could do pretty easily that represents a concrete perk > above and beyond sponsoring the individual conferences. > > > The challenge is that the only thing we can discount is the admin fee. > Based > > on my feedback, even if we didn't charge any fees, I'm not convinced that > > any companies would take us up on what we're offering in the prospectus. > > We have a bit of a chicken & egg problem here - we need conference > organisers to get involved to make the program attractive to sponsors, > but we need sponsors to get involved to make the program attractive to > conference organisers. > > Given the somewhat experimental nature of the program, perhaps it > might make sense to offer a straight up fee waiver for the first year > or two for the inaugural sponsors? That would mean a greater > speculative investment on the PSF's part, but it could potentially get > us past the bootstrapping stage, and provide the initial impetus > needed to create a virtuous cycle of sponsor participation attracting > conference participation, which makes the program more attractive to > future sponsors, which makes it more obviously beneficial for > conferences to participate, etc... > > It would also mean we could be up front with the inaugural sponsors > that the 15% figure is a preliminary estimate for what we think would > be needed to make this program self-sustaining rather than > cross-subsidised by other PSF revenue raising activities, and we > wouldn't actually start charging the admin fee until we had a year or > two of real data to use to calibrate the appropriate amount. > > > Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we don't have a > > lot of data to look at. > > Right, and a number of those are companies where their list of > sponsored Python conferences is already longer than the list in the > prospectus, so the value proposition for them is different from that > for organisations where the program will hopefully let them expand > their reach beyond what they could readily manage on their own. > > > I'm very willing to add copy to our working doc, but I need help with the > > wording. A page could be added before the "Build Your Own Bundle" page > that > > shows the offer that is not "custom" or a la carte and the discount. > Right > > now, we're only showing a custom option. > > Postponing the bundles to the 2nd year of the program is still > attractive from the point of view of keeping things as simple as we > can this time around. There are also other ways we could structure the > discounts, such as on a "length of continuous participation" basis > (since a sponsor organisation is likely to require more handholding in > the first year than they are in subsequent years), or in terms of > sheer number of conferences sponsored. > > So despite my advocacy for the "bundle discount" approach, I'm > becoming more of a fan of the "as thanks for helping us launch the > prospectus, first year sponsors will have their admin fees waived for > the first two years the international prospectus is in operation". We > likely do need to be explicit that the PSF doesn't plan to subsidise > sponsor's administration costs indefinitely, though - we're just > prepared to do it for a couple of years in order to gather the data we > need to figure out the actual costs of running the program. > > Regards, > Nick. > > > > > Betsy > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan > wrote: > >> > >> On 12 March 2016 at 23:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> > On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> >> As far as covering costs goes, I think an important aspect of that > >> >> will be to be clear that bundling carries an expectation of reduced > >> >> customisation of benefits, at least at the PSF level - hence the fee > >> >> discounts. > >> > > >> > I'm not sure which fee discounts you are referring to here. > >> > >> I mean the proposal for distinct a la carte/regional/global rates for > >> the administration overhead - my working assumption from the start has > >> always been that conferences get their normal sponsorship amounts, and > >> we'd figure out some other way to cover the PSF's costs (whether that > >> was cross-subsidisation from PyCon US, covering it out of general > >> sponsorships, or applying an additional percentage to the bundles to > >> cover costs). > >> > >> The reason I specifically like the "15/7.5/3" administration charge > >> structure is that: > >> > >> * a self-sustaining program is preferable, since that provides more > >> scope for future hiring & grant making > >> * 50% and 80% are substantial enough discounts for potential sponsors > >> to appreciate them > >> * 20/10/4 feels too high, 10/5/2 feels too low, so 15/7.5/3 splits the > >> difference > >> * I except many of the PSF's costs in staff time to be incurred per > >> sponsor, rather than per event (registering with their supplier > >> management if they're not already PSF or PyCon sponsors, getting to > >> know the right points of contact within their event management > >> organisation, getting to know what they're generally interested in as > >> sponsor benefits, etc) > >> * for sponsors that opt for a bundle over a la carte, I'd still expect > >> their typical engagement with the smaller regional events to be low > >> (since they often won't have an on-site presence there - unless they > >> were planning to be involved in the event anyway, the cost in staff > >> time and travel would likely exceed the sponsorship) > >> > >> Consider the global Platinum sponsorship, for example - the admin fee > >> discount there ends up being just over $9000. Compared to a more > >> selective a la carte sponsorship, that's likely going to mean a > >> Platinum sponsorship for each of the 3 or 4 lowest cost conferences > >> participating in the prospectus - those are often also going to be the > >> ones where the return on investment for large sponsors is smallest, > >> but the potential return on investment for the PSF in terms of growing > >> the Python community is highest (it's much easier for a 150 person > >> conference to grow to 300 people than it is for a 750 person > >> conference to grow to 1500). > >> > >> Along those lines, I've posted a couple of comments in the document > >> suggesting a change in the way the administration charges for the > >> bundles are presented. > >> > >> Currently, the discounts are baked into the percentage used to > >> calculate the the administration charge line item. I believe it would > >> be preferable to always list the administration charge at the a la > >> carte rate, and then explicitly list the fee discount as a separate > >> line. Using the global Platinum sponsorship as an example again, > >> that's currently presented as: > >> > >> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 > >> Program administration charge (3%): 2298 > >> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78888 > >> > >> I'd suggest instead presenting it as: > >> > >> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 > >> Program administration charge (15%): 11488 > >> Administration charge discount (80%): -9191 > >> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78887 > >> > >> (In that particular case, the rounding works out slightly differently, > >> but that's at most a dollar either way) > >> > >> Regards, > >> Nick. > >> > >> -- > >> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Betsy Waliszewski > > Python Software Foundation > > Event Coordinator / Administrator > > @betswaliszewski > > > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > -- Betsy Waliszewski Python Software Foundation Event Coordinator / Administrator @betswaliszewski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncoghlan at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 22:09:11 2016 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:09:11 +1000 Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: On 12 April 2016 at 06:20, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: > Hi team, > > After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold > until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design services > so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the conference > is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project. I agree that makes sense from a staff focus perspective, but would it still be acceptable for us to pitch the prospectus directly in its current form? I'm currently trying to explain to Red Hat's Open Source & Standards team the differences between working with a public interest charity and trade associations run in the interests of sponsor members, as well as asking if a fee waiver for a year or two would impact their current attitude of "We don't want to pay a modest admin fee to help a public interest charity run a self-supporting regional conference funding program". However, Red Hat's annual budgeting cycle runs March -> February, so if we put the idea entirely on hold from the PSF side until July or so (allowing a month for post-PyCon wind down activities and bringing the new Board up to speed), it would make more sense for me to defer that argument until next financial year. Regards, Nick. > > Best, > > Betsy > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> On 15 March 2016 at 04:10, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: >> > Hi Nick, >> > >> > We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The PDF I >> > sent around is our working document. >> >> Ah, nice - that *is* very attractive! >> >> > That being said, we do need to >> > incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and >> > whatever >> > discounts we decide to offer. >> >> Right, at the moment it isn't clear what the benefits are relative to >> sponsoring directly, nor where the 15% program administration charge >> is going to go. It may be helpful if there were a couple of sections >> like: >> >> Program Sponsor Benefits: >> * year-round acknowledgement on python.org in addition to any >> acknowledgements on individual conference sites >> * single point of financial contact for 10+ conferences >> * consistent financial arrangements year-over-year >> * delegated responsibility for compliance with financial regulations >> in recipient countries >> >> Program Administration Activities: >> * disbursing funds to participating conferences in compliance with >> local and international regulations >> * advising community-led conferences on working effectively with sponsors >> * advising sponsors on working effectively with community-led conferences >> * advising community-led conferences on responsibly managing financial >> risks >> * promoting and facilitating the addition of further community-led >> conferences to the program >> * collection and presentation of sponsorship details from >> participating conferences in a standard format >> >> The first suggested point under "sponsor benefits" is a new one, but >> something we could do pretty easily that represents a concrete perk >> above and beyond sponsoring the individual conferences. >> >> > The challenge is that the only thing we can discount is the admin fee. >> > Based >> > on my feedback, even if we didn't charge any fees, I'm not convinced >> > that >> > any companies would take us up on what we're offering in the prospectus. >> >> We have a bit of a chicken & egg problem here - we need conference >> organisers to get involved to make the program attractive to sponsors, >> but we need sponsors to get involved to make the program attractive to >> conference organisers. >> >> Given the somewhat experimental nature of the program, perhaps it >> might make sense to offer a straight up fee waiver for the first year >> or two for the inaugural sponsors? That would mean a greater >> speculative investment on the PSF's part, but it could potentially get >> us past the bootstrapping stage, and provide the initial impetus >> needed to create a virtuous cycle of sponsor participation attracting >> conference participation, which makes the program more attractive to >> future sponsors, which makes it more obviously beneficial for >> conferences to participate, etc... >> >> It would also mean we could be up front with the inaugural sponsors >> that the 15% figure is a preliminary estimate for what we think would >> be needed to make this program self-sustaining rather than >> cross-subsidised by other PSF revenue raising activities, and we >> wouldn't actually start charging the admin fee until we had a year or >> two of real data to use to calibrate the appropriate amount. >> >> > Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we don't have >> > a >> > lot of data to look at. >> >> Right, and a number of those are companies where their list of >> sponsored Python conferences is already longer than the list in the >> prospectus, so the value proposition for them is different from that >> for organisations where the program will hopefully let them expand >> their reach beyond what they could readily manage on their own. >> >> > I'm very willing to add copy to our working doc, but I need help with >> > the >> > wording. A page could be added before the "Build Your Own Bundle" page >> > that >> > shows the offer that is not "custom" or a la carte and the discount. >> > Right >> > now, we're only showing a custom option. >> >> Postponing the bundles to the 2nd year of the program is still >> attractive from the point of view of keeping things as simple as we >> can this time around. There are also other ways we could structure the >> discounts, such as on a "length of continuous participation" basis >> (since a sponsor organisation is likely to require more handholding in >> the first year than they are in subsequent years), or in terms of >> sheer number of conferences sponsored. >> >> So despite my advocacy for the "bundle discount" approach, I'm >> becoming more of a fan of the "as thanks for helping us launch the >> prospectus, first year sponsors will have their admin fees waived for >> the first two years the international prospectus is in operation". We >> likely do need to be explicit that the PSF doesn't plan to subsidise >> sponsor's administration costs indefinitely, though - we're just >> prepared to do it for a couple of years in order to gather the data we >> need to figure out the actual costs of running the program. >> >> Regards, >> Nick. >> >> > >> > Betsy >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12 March 2016 at 23:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> > On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> >> As far as covering costs goes, I think an important aspect of that >> >> >> will be to be clear that bundling carries an expectation of reduced >> >> >> customisation of benefits, at least at the PSF level - hence the fee >> >> >> discounts. >> >> > >> >> > I'm not sure which fee discounts you are referring to here. >> >> >> >> I mean the proposal for distinct a la carte/regional/global rates for >> >> the administration overhead - my working assumption from the start has >> >> always been that conferences get their normal sponsorship amounts, and >> >> we'd figure out some other way to cover the PSF's costs (whether that >> >> was cross-subsidisation from PyCon US, covering it out of general >> >> sponsorships, or applying an additional percentage to the bundles to >> >> cover costs). >> >> >> >> The reason I specifically like the "15/7.5/3" administration charge >> >> structure is that: >> >> >> >> * a self-sustaining program is preferable, since that provides more >> >> scope for future hiring & grant making >> >> * 50% and 80% are substantial enough discounts for potential sponsors >> >> to appreciate them >> >> * 20/10/4 feels too high, 10/5/2 feels too low, so 15/7.5/3 splits the >> >> difference >> >> * I except many of the PSF's costs in staff time to be incurred per >> >> sponsor, rather than per event (registering with their supplier >> >> management if they're not already PSF or PyCon sponsors, getting to >> >> know the right points of contact within their event management >> >> organisation, getting to know what they're generally interested in as >> >> sponsor benefits, etc) >> >> * for sponsors that opt for a bundle over a la carte, I'd still expect >> >> their typical engagement with the smaller regional events to be low >> >> (since they often won't have an on-site presence there - unless they >> >> were planning to be involved in the event anyway, the cost in staff >> >> time and travel would likely exceed the sponsorship) >> >> >> >> Consider the global Platinum sponsorship, for example - the admin fee >> >> discount there ends up being just over $9000. Compared to a more >> >> selective a la carte sponsorship, that's likely going to mean a >> >> Platinum sponsorship for each of the 3 or 4 lowest cost conferences >> >> participating in the prospectus - those are often also going to be the >> >> ones where the return on investment for large sponsors is smallest, >> >> but the potential return on investment for the PSF in terms of growing >> >> the Python community is highest (it's much easier for a 150 person >> >> conference to grow to 300 people than it is for a 750 person >> >> conference to grow to 1500). >> >> >> >> Along those lines, I've posted a couple of comments in the document >> >> suggesting a change in the way the administration charges for the >> >> bundles are presented. >> >> >> >> Currently, the discounts are baked into the percentage used to >> >> calculate the the administration charge line item. I believe it would >> >> be preferable to always list the administration charge at the a la >> >> carte rate, and then explicitly list the fee discount as a separate >> >> line. Using the global Platinum sponsorship as an example again, >> >> that's currently presented as: >> >> >> >> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 >> >> Program administration charge (3%): 2298 >> >> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78888 >> >> >> >> I'd suggest instead presenting it as: >> >> >> >> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 >> >> Program administration charge (15%): 11488 >> >> Administration charge discount (80%): -9191 >> >> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78887 >> >> >> >> (In that particular case, the rounding works out slightly differently, >> >> but that's at most a dollar either way) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Nick. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Betsy Waliszewski >> > Python Software Foundation >> > Event Coordinator / Administrator >> > @betswaliszewski >> >> >> >> -- >> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > > > > > -- > Betsy Waliszewski > Python Software Foundation > Event Coordinator / Administrator > @betswaliszewski -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia From ncoghlan at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 00:13:05 2016 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:13:05 +1000 Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: On 12 April 2016 at 12:09, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 12 April 2016 at 06:20, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: >> Hi team, >> >> After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold >> until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design services >> so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the conference >> is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project. > > I agree that makes sense from a staff focus perspective, but would it > still be acceptable for us to pitch the prospectus directly in its > current form? I'm currently trying to explain to Red Hat's Open Source > & Standards team the differences between working with a public > interest charity and trade associations run in the interests of > sponsor members, as well as asking if a fee waiver for a year or two > would impact their current attitude of "We don't want to pay a modest > admin fee to help a public interest charity run a self-supporting > regional conference funding program". Sorry, scratch that snarkiness (it was me being mean to folks working within the constraints of operating budgets set at much higher levels). At this point, I'll personally put this question on hold as well, and revisit it after design iterations start up again on the PSF side of things. One thing I did look up was metrics on what's considered a reasonable processing-cost-per-invoice for corporate Finance departments, and that seems to be around the USD$5-12 mark, at least in the US: http://ww2.cfo.com/expense-management/2015/06/metric-month-accounts-payable-process-cost/ Since we're currently proposing an admin fee of 10-20x that even for the 3% "All the PyCons" level (and 50-100x for the a la carte level), we're likely going to need to adjust the way we cover those costs (e.g. making it a fixed charge per conference per sponsor, rather than scaling with the amount they distribute to participating conferences). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia From mal at python.org Tue Apr 12 03:32:02 2016 From: mal at python.org (M.-A. Lemburg) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:32:02 +0200 Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <570CA472.8040503@python.org> On 12.04.2016 04:09, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 12 April 2016 at 06:20, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: >> Hi team, >> >> After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold >> until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design services >> so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the conference >> is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project. > > I agree that makes sense from a staff focus perspective, but would it > still be acceptable for us to pitch the prospectus directly in its > current form? Sure, why not ? The current form is what we had discussed. I suspect that when opening up the discussion again, we'll either end up with something that will need a new version of the brochure or we come to the conclusion that the bundle idea is not really working out, in which case, we'd stop putting more effort into this. > I'm currently trying to explain to Red Hat's Open Source > & Standards team the differences between working with a public > interest charity and trade associations run in the interests of > sponsor members, as well as asking if a fee waiver for a year or two > would impact their current attitude of "We don't want to pay a modest > admin fee to help a public interest charity run a self-supporting > regional conference funding program". However, Red Hat's annual > budgeting cycle runs March -> February, so if we put the idea entirely > on hold from the PSF side until July or so (allowing a month for > post-PyCon wind down activities and bringing the new Board up to > speed), it would make more sense for me to defer that argument until > next financial year. > > Regards, > Nick. > >> >> Best, >> >> Betsy >> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>> On 15 March 2016 at 04:10, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The PDF I >>>> sent around is our working document. >>> >>> Ah, nice - that *is* very attractive! >>> >>>> That being said, we do need to >>>> incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and >>>> whatever >>>> discounts we decide to offer. >>> >>> Right, at the moment it isn't clear what the benefits are relative to >>> sponsoring directly, nor where the 15% program administration charge >>> is going to go. It may be helpful if there were a couple of sections >>> like: >>> >>> Program Sponsor Benefits: >>> * year-round acknowledgement on python.org in addition to any >>> acknowledgements on individual conference sites >>> * single point of financial contact for 10+ conferences >>> * consistent financial arrangements year-over-year >>> * delegated responsibility for compliance with financial regulations >>> in recipient countries >>> >>> Program Administration Activities: >>> * disbursing funds to participating conferences in compliance with >>> local and international regulations >>> * advising community-led conferences on working effectively with sponsors >>> * advising sponsors on working effectively with community-led conferences >>> * advising community-led conferences on responsibly managing financial >>> risks >>> * promoting and facilitating the addition of further community-led >>> conferences to the program >>> * collection and presentation of sponsorship details from >>> participating conferences in a standard format >>> >>> The first suggested point under "sponsor benefits" is a new one, but >>> something we could do pretty easily that represents a concrete perk >>> above and beyond sponsoring the individual conferences. >>> >>>> The challenge is that the only thing we can discount is the admin fee. >>>> Based >>>> on my feedback, even if we didn't charge any fees, I'm not convinced >>>> that >>>> any companies would take us up on what we're offering in the prospectus. >>> >>> We have a bit of a chicken & egg problem here - we need conference >>> organisers to get involved to make the program attractive to sponsors, >>> but we need sponsors to get involved to make the program attractive to >>> conference organisers. >>> >>> Given the somewhat experimental nature of the program, perhaps it >>> might make sense to offer a straight up fee waiver for the first year >>> or two for the inaugural sponsors? That would mean a greater >>> speculative investment on the PSF's part, but it could potentially get >>> us past the bootstrapping stage, and provide the initial impetus >>> needed to create a virtuous cycle of sponsor participation attracting >>> conference participation, which makes the program more attractive to >>> future sponsors, which makes it more obviously beneficial for >>> conferences to participate, etc... >>> >>> It would also mean we could be up front with the inaugural sponsors >>> that the 15% figure is a preliminary estimate for what we think would >>> be needed to make this program self-sustaining rather than >>> cross-subsidised by other PSF revenue raising activities, and we >>> wouldn't actually start charging the admin fee until we had a year or >>> two of real data to use to calibrate the appropriate amount. >>> >>>> Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we don't have >>>> a >>>> lot of data to look at. >>> >>> Right, and a number of those are companies where their list of >>> sponsored Python conferences is already longer than the list in the >>> prospectus, so the value proposition for them is different from that >>> for organisations where the program will hopefully let them expand >>> their reach beyond what they could readily manage on their own. >>> >>>> I'm very willing to add copy to our working doc, but I need help with >>>> the >>>> wording. A page could be added before the "Build Your Own Bundle" page >>>> that >>>> shows the offer that is not "custom" or a la carte and the discount. >>>> Right >>>> now, we're only showing a custom option. >>> >>> Postponing the bundles to the 2nd year of the program is still >>> attractive from the point of view of keeping things as simple as we >>> can this time around. There are also other ways we could structure the >>> discounts, such as on a "length of continuous participation" basis >>> (since a sponsor organisation is likely to require more handholding in >>> the first year than they are in subsequent years), or in terms of >>> sheer number of conferences sponsored. >>> >>> So despite my advocacy for the "bundle discount" approach, I'm >>> becoming more of a fan of the "as thanks for helping us launch the >>> prospectus, first year sponsors will have their admin fees waived for >>> the first two years the international prospectus is in operation". We >>> likely do need to be explicit that the PSF doesn't plan to subsidise >>> sponsor's administration costs indefinitely, though - we're just >>> prepared to do it for a couple of years in order to gather the data we >>> need to figure out the actual costs of running the program. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Nick. >>> >>>> >>>> Betsy >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 12 March 2016 at 23:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >>>>>> On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>>>>>> As far as covering costs goes, I think an important aspect of that >>>>>>> will be to be clear that bundling carries an expectation of reduced >>>>>>> customisation of benefits, at least at the PSF level - hence the fee >>>>>>> discounts. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure which fee discounts you are referring to here. >>>>> >>>>> I mean the proposal for distinct a la carte/regional/global rates for >>>>> the administration overhead - my working assumption from the start has >>>>> always been that conferences get their normal sponsorship amounts, and >>>>> we'd figure out some other way to cover the PSF's costs (whether that >>>>> was cross-subsidisation from PyCon US, covering it out of general >>>>> sponsorships, or applying an additional percentage to the bundles to >>>>> cover costs). >>>>> >>>>> The reason I specifically like the "15/7.5/3" administration charge >>>>> structure is that: >>>>> >>>>> * a self-sustaining program is preferable, since that provides more >>>>> scope for future hiring & grant making >>>>> * 50% and 80% are substantial enough discounts for potential sponsors >>>>> to appreciate them >>>>> * 20/10/4 feels too high, 10/5/2 feels too low, so 15/7.5/3 splits the >>>>> difference >>>>> * I except many of the PSF's costs in staff time to be incurred per >>>>> sponsor, rather than per event (registering with their supplier >>>>> management if they're not already PSF or PyCon sponsors, getting to >>>>> know the right points of contact within their event management >>>>> organisation, getting to know what they're generally interested in as >>>>> sponsor benefits, etc) >>>>> * for sponsors that opt for a bundle over a la carte, I'd still expect >>>>> their typical engagement with the smaller regional events to be low >>>>> (since they often won't have an on-site presence there - unless they >>>>> were planning to be involved in the event anyway, the cost in staff >>>>> time and travel would likely exceed the sponsorship) >>>>> >>>>> Consider the global Platinum sponsorship, for example - the admin fee >>>>> discount there ends up being just over $9000. Compared to a more >>>>> selective a la carte sponsorship, that's likely going to mean a >>>>> Platinum sponsorship for each of the 3 or 4 lowest cost conferences >>>>> participating in the prospectus - those are often also going to be the >>>>> ones where the return on investment for large sponsors is smallest, >>>>> but the potential return on investment for the PSF in terms of growing >>>>> the Python community is highest (it's much easier for a 150 person >>>>> conference to grow to 300 people than it is for a 750 person >>>>> conference to grow to 1500). >>>>> >>>>> Along those lines, I've posted a couple of comments in the document >>>>> suggesting a change in the way the administration charges for the >>>>> bundles are presented. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, the discounts are baked into the percentage used to >>>>> calculate the the administration charge line item. I believe it would >>>>> be preferable to always list the administration charge at the a la >>>>> carte rate, and then explicitly list the fee discount as a separate >>>>> line. Using the global Platinum sponsorship as an example again, >>>>> that's currently presented as: >>>>> >>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 >>>>> Program administration charge (3%): 2298 >>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78888 >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest instead presenting it as: >>>>> >>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 >>>>> Program administration charge (15%): 11488 >>>>> Administration charge discount (80%): -9191 >>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78887 >>>>> >>>>> (In that particular case, the rounding works out slightly differently, >>>>> but that's at most a dollar either way) >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Nick. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Betsy Waliszewski >>>> Python Software Foundation >>>> Event Coordinator / Administrator >>>> @betswaliszewski >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Betsy Waliszewski >> Python Software Foundation >> Event Coordinator / Administrator >> @betswaliszewski > > > -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/ From mal at python.org Tue Apr 12 11:14:23 2016 From: mal at python.org (M.-A. Lemburg) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:14:23 +0200 Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <570D10CF.4020605@python.org> On 12.04.2016 06:13, Nick Coghlan wrote: > One thing I did look up was metrics on what's considered a reasonable > processing-cost-per-invoice for corporate Finance departments, and > that seems to be around the USD$5-12 mark, at least in the US: > http://ww2.cfo.com/expense-management/2015/06/metric-month-accounts-payable-process-cost/ This would just be the invoice processing, which is essentially what we'd need to cover Kurt's work w/r to associated payments. > Since we're currently proposing an admin fee of 10-20x that even for > the 3% "All the PyCons" level (and 50-100x for the a la carte level), > we're likely going to need to adjust the way we cover those costs > (e.g. making it a fixed charge per conference per sponsor, rather than > scaling with the amount they distribute to participating conferences). The bulk part of the administration will be chasing up the right people in the resp. conference teams, making sure the right people connect and doing all the upfront work of finding common denominators among the different packages. The main advantage for the sponsors is not having to get e.g. 10+ conference teams signed up to their procurement systems every year. I wouldn't underestimate the costs of this either, even though it's an internal spending. If you look at absolute numbers, the admin charge is still a bargain compared to having to work directly with the conference teams for billing purposes. I guess we're just not making these advantages explicit enough to the sponsors. Regardless of all this, sponsors don't seem to have widely open pockets this year anyway, so the slow response is just showing here as well. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/ From betsy at python.org Tue Apr 12 10:22:11 2016 From: betsy at python.org (Betsy Waliszewski) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:22:11 -0700 Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus In-Reply-To: <570CA472.8040503@python.org> References:

<570CA472.8040503@python.org> Message-ID: 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. Betsy On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 12.04.2016 04:09, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 12 April 2016 at 06:20, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: > >> Hi team, > >> > >> After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold > >> until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design > services > >> so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the > conference > >> is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project. > > > > I agree that makes sense from a staff focus perspective, but would it > > still be acceptable for us to pitch the prospectus directly in its > > current form? > > Sure, why not ? > > The current form is what we had discussed. I suspect that > when opening up the discussion again, we'll either end up with > something that will need a new version of the brochure or > we come to the conclusion that the bundle idea is not > really working out, in which case, we'd stop putting more > effort into this. > > > I'm currently trying to explain to Red Hat's Open Source > > & Standards team the differences between working with a public > > interest charity and trade associations run in the interests of > > sponsor members, as well as asking if a fee waiver for a year or two > > would impact their current attitude of "We don't want to pay a modest > > admin fee to help a public interest charity run a self-supporting > > regional conference funding program". However, Red Hat's annual > > budgeting cycle runs March -> February, so if we put the idea entirely > > on hold from the PSF side until July or so (allowing a month for > > post-PyCon wind down activities and bringing the new Board up to > > speed), it would make more sense for me to defer that argument until > > next financial year. > > > > Regards, > > Nick. > > > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Betsy > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 15 March 2016 at 04:10, Betsy Waliszewski wrote: > >>>> Hi Nick, > >>>> > >>>> We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The > PDF I > >>>> sent around is our working document. > >>> > >>> Ah, nice - that *is* very attractive! > >>> > >>>> That being said, we do need to > >>>> incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and > >>>> whatever > >>>> discounts we decide to offer. > >>> > >>> Right, at the moment it isn't clear what the benefits are relative to > >>> sponsoring directly, nor where the 15% program administration charge > >>> is going to go. It may be helpful if there were a couple of sections > >>> like: > >>> > >>> Program Sponsor Benefits: > >>> * year-round acknowledgement on python.org in addition to any > >>> acknowledgements on individual conference sites > >>> * single point of financial contact for 10+ conferences > >>> * consistent financial arrangements year-over-year > >>> * delegated responsibility for compliance with financial regulations > >>> in recipient countries > >>> > >>> Program Administration Activities: > >>> * disbursing funds to participating conferences in compliance with > >>> local and international regulations > >>> * advising community-led conferences on working effectively with > sponsors > >>> * advising sponsors on working effectively with community-led > conferences > >>> * advising community-led conferences on responsibly managing financial > >>> risks > >>> * promoting and facilitating the addition of further community-led > >>> conferences to the program > >>> * collection and presentation of sponsorship details from > >>> participating conferences in a standard format > >>> > >>> The first suggested point under "sponsor benefits" is a new one, but > >>> something we could do pretty easily that represents a concrete perk > >>> above and beyond sponsoring the individual conferences. > >>> > >>>> The challenge is that the only thing we can discount is the admin fee. > >>>> Based > >>>> on my feedback, even if we didn't charge any fees, I'm not convinced > >>>> that > >>>> any companies would take us up on what we're offering in the > prospectus. > >>> > >>> We have a bit of a chicken & egg problem here - we need conference > >>> organisers to get involved to make the program attractive to sponsors, > >>> but we need sponsors to get involved to make the program attractive to > >>> conference organisers. > >>> > >>> Given the somewhat experimental nature of the program, perhaps it > >>> might make sense to offer a straight up fee waiver for the first year > >>> or two for the inaugural sponsors? That would mean a greater > >>> speculative investment on the PSF's part, but it could potentially get > >>> us past the bootstrapping stage, and provide the initial impetus > >>> needed to create a virtuous cycle of sponsor participation attracting > >>> conference participation, which makes the program more attractive to > >>> future sponsors, which makes it more obviously beneficial for > >>> conferences to participate, etc... > >>> > >>> It would also mean we could be up front with the inaugural sponsors > >>> that the 15% figure is a preliminary estimate for what we think would > >>> be needed to make this program self-sustaining rather than > >>> cross-subsidised by other PSF revenue raising activities, and we > >>> wouldn't actually start charging the admin fee until we had a year or > >>> two of real data to use to calibrate the appropriate amount. > >>> > >>>> Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we don't > have > >>>> a > >>>> lot of data to look at. > >>> > >>> Right, and a number of those are companies where their list of > >>> sponsored Python conferences is already longer than the list in the > >>> prospectus, so the value proposition for them is different from that > >>> for organisations where the program will hopefully let them expand > >>> their reach beyond what they could readily manage on their own. > >>> > >>>> I'm very willing to add copy to our working doc, but I need help with > >>>> the > >>>> wording. A page could be added before the "Build Your Own Bundle" page > >>>> that > >>>> shows the offer that is not "custom" or a la carte and the discount. > >>>> Right > >>>> now, we're only showing a custom option. > >>> > >>> Postponing the bundles to the 2nd year of the program is still > >>> attractive from the point of view of keeping things as simple as we > >>> can this time around. There are also other ways we could structure the > >>> discounts, such as on a "length of continuous participation" basis > >>> (since a sponsor organisation is likely to require more handholding in > >>> the first year than they are in subsequent years), or in terms of > >>> sheer number of conferences sponsored. > >>> > >>> So despite my advocacy for the "bundle discount" approach, I'm > >>> becoming more of a fan of the "as thanks for helping us launch the > >>> prospectus, first year sponsors will have their admin fees waived for > >>> the first two years the international prospectus is in operation". We > >>> likely do need to be explicit that the PSF doesn't plan to subsidise > >>> sponsor's administration costs indefinitely, though - we're just > >>> prepared to do it for a couple of years in order to gather the data we > >>> need to figure out the actual costs of running the program. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Nick. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Betsy > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 12 March 2016 at 23:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >>>>>> On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>>>>>> As far as covering costs goes, I think an important aspect of that > >>>>>>> will be to be clear that bundling carries an expectation of reduced > >>>>>>> customisation of benefits, at least at the PSF level - hence the > fee > >>>>>>> discounts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure which fee discounts you are referring to here. > >>>>> > >>>>> I mean the proposal for distinct a la carte/regional/global rates for > >>>>> the administration overhead - my working assumption from the start > has > >>>>> always been that conferences get their normal sponsorship amounts, > and > >>>>> we'd figure out some other way to cover the PSF's costs (whether that > >>>>> was cross-subsidisation from PyCon US, covering it out of general > >>>>> sponsorships, or applying an additional percentage to the bundles to > >>>>> cover costs). > >>>>> > >>>>> The reason I specifically like the "15/7.5/3" administration charge > >>>>> structure is that: > >>>>> > >>>>> * a self-sustaining program is preferable, since that provides more > >>>>> scope for future hiring & grant making > >>>>> * 50% and 80% are substantial enough discounts for potential sponsors > >>>>> to appreciate them > >>>>> * 20/10/4 feels too high, 10/5/2 feels too low, so 15/7.5/3 splits > the > >>>>> difference > >>>>> * I except many of the PSF's costs in staff time to be incurred per > >>>>> sponsor, rather than per event (registering with their supplier > >>>>> management if they're not already PSF or PyCon sponsors, getting to > >>>>> know the right points of contact within their event management > >>>>> organisation, getting to know what they're generally interested in as > >>>>> sponsor benefits, etc) > >>>>> * for sponsors that opt for a bundle over a la carte, I'd still > expect > >>>>> their typical engagement with the smaller regional events to be low > >>>>> (since they often won't have an on-site presence there - unless they > >>>>> were planning to be involved in the event anyway, the cost in staff > >>>>> time and travel would likely exceed the sponsorship) > >>>>> > >>>>> Consider the global Platinum sponsorship, for example - the admin fee > >>>>> discount there ends up being just over $9000. Compared to a more > >>>>> selective a la carte sponsorship, that's likely going to mean a > >>>>> Platinum sponsorship for each of the 3 or 4 lowest cost conferences > >>>>> participating in the prospectus - those are often also going to be > the > >>>>> ones where the return on investment for large sponsors is smallest, > >>>>> but the potential return on investment for the PSF in terms of > growing > >>>>> the Python community is highest (it's much easier for a 150 person > >>>>> conference to grow to 300 people than it is for a 750 person > >>>>> conference to grow to 1500). > >>>>> > >>>>> Along those lines, I've posted a couple of comments in the document > >>>>> suggesting a change in the way the administration charges for the > >>>>> bundles are presented. > >>>>> > >>>>> Currently, the discounts are baked into the percentage used to > >>>>> calculate the the administration charge line item. I believe it would > >>>>> be preferable to always list the administration charge at the a la > >>>>> carte rate, and then explicitly list the fee discount as a separate > >>>>> line. Using the global Platinum sponsorship as an example again, > >>>>> that's currently presented as: > >>>>> > >>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 > >>>>> Program administration charge (3%): 2298 > >>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78888 > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd suggest instead presenting it as: > >>>>> > >>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590 > >>>>> Program administration charge (15%): 11488 > >>>>> Administration charge discount (80%): -9191 > >>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78887 > >>>>> > >>>>> (In that particular case, the rounding works out slightly > differently, > >>>>> but that's at most a dollar either way) > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Nick. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Betsy Waliszewski > >>>> Python Software Foundation > >>>> Event Coordinator / Administrator > >>>> @betswaliszewski > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Betsy Waliszewski > >> Python Software Foundation > >> Event Coordinator / Administrator > >> @betswaliszewski > > > > > > > > -- > Marc-Andre Lemburg > Director > Python Software Foundation > http://www.python.org/psf/ > http://www.malemburg.com/ > -- Betsy Waliszewski Python Software Foundation Event Coordinator / Administrator @betswaliszewski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: International PyCon Prospectus.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1000074 bytes Desc: not available URL: