- Inkscape Board of Directors

[REFERENDUM] 10% of earmarked revenue to support Conservancy
by Bryce Harrington 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

A majority vote of the current board members is required for this matter. Proposed: 10% of Inkscape's earmarked revenue is to be paid to the Software Freedom Conservancy. This will help them continue to provide services to open source projects. [ ] a. Yes, allow the 10% payment to the Conservancy [ ] b. No, keep arrangements as is Background: The proposal is from Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of the Conservancy, who wrote to us on this list a couple weeks ago: (b) As I've discussed with a number of you, including Jon, Josh and Tavmjong, Inkscape has received fiscal sponsorship services from Conservancy at no charge since 2006. Back when Conservancy was founded, I was an SFLC employee and SFLC was subsidizing my time -- effectively donating staff time to Conservancy. This ceased in early 2008, and I served as a volunteer for Conservancy on nights/weekends until 2011, when I became a full-time employee -- which was the only way to keep it going with the services it promises (the other option would have been to shut down Conservancy). Since then, to maintain legal services as part of the service plan once SFLC shrunk further, we hired Tony as well. We get a lot done with a staff of two, but obviously we need financial resources to be able to provide these services. Conservancy's Board of Directors voted about a year ago that all member projects should be required to give 10% of their earmarked revenue to support Conservancy to continue to provide services. This is a standard way for a fiscal sponsor to operate, and we were lucky before that we weren't required to do this, and I'd been waiting to bother Inkscape with this since you are one of our older members. (We haven't taken a new member for anything other than 10% in a few years, BTW). I hope a 10% arrangement as we use with other projects now will be acceptable to you, and I and Tony are happy to discuss further this issue. Bryce

7 23

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Tavmjong Bah 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 16:01 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Bryce Harrington wrote at 17:03 (EST) on Thursday: > > One other question that came up was if this income would include > > "pass-through" funds, such as situations we've had in the past where > > Google or some other organization sponsored travel or funded work by a > > developer by donating it to Inkscape via the Conservancy, and then the > > developer was paid via Inkscape. Would the rule cover this type of > > income as well? > > The two examples you give are generally handled differently. For true > reimbursement of expenses (e.g., Google gives us the exact amount of a > flight, as part of a program that reimburses only travel costs), > Conservancy has generally not taken 10% of that. From an accounting > perspective, "income" and "reimbursement of expenses" are accrued > differently. > > For anything that's actual income, like a donation from Google, or > anyone else, that's income to Conservancy. The IRS sees it that way > fully. Conservancy does have an agreement with the Inkscape developers > to say that we'll keep that money in the Inkscape Fund and spend on > stuff that (a) advances Inkscape, (b) is approved by the Inkscape > Committee, and (c) is fitting with Conservancy's IRS charitable mission. > > What Conservancy now does for all new projects, (and most of our > founding ones too, who have converted), is that 10% of any of that > Income goes into Conservancy's general fund, and the rest goes into the > Project Fund. With this clarification that "income" and "reimbursement of expenses" are treated differently and that "reimbursement of expenses" is not included in the 10%, I vote yes to change our agreement with SFC to give them 10% of our earmarked revenues. Tav

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Ted Gould 02 Dec '12

02 Dec '12

On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 16:01 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Thus, I'd like to discuss with you about what the objections are in > detail. Is Inkscape in some way unhappy with Conservancy's services? I'll throw in my opinion, and I'm guessing that of others. We do think that the Conservancy's work is valuable and has definitely been helpful in maintaining Inkscape. I don't know of any issues that we have. I think the resistance here is natural from the "we didn't think about paying for it" perspective. It's always to go from something you got for free to something you're paying for, it immediately creates the reaction of "how much is this worth?" which people haven't thought about. Personally, I think that 10% is reasonable considering all the Conservancy does do. I'm not sure that we "use" $600/year worth of services, but I do think that's a reasonable way for the Conservancy to charge member projects (fair to all), and if we were more active on the business front (our fault, not yours) we definitely would. I also like the flat percentage than trying to figure out a more complex scheme. So in general, I don't feel their is objection per se, as much as we haven't thought about the Conservancy as something we've had to pay for. I don't think it's unreasonable that we would, but we need to change our perceptions. --Ted

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Bryce Harrington 29 Nov '12

29 Nov '12

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:22:45AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Bryce Harrington wrote at 15:30 (EST) on Wednesday: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:50:28AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > >> Bryce, thanks for the details on the GSoC payments. I'll reach out to > >> each mentor and ask them what they want to do. I have all their email > >> addresses except for: Krzysztof Kosiński > > > When you ask them, can you also ask them if they want the 10% to go to > > Conservancy? > > Unfortunately, I've already sent the emails to ask (I sent them in > parallel to the email you're responding to above). I very much > appreciate the gesture here, but I'd also much rather Inkscape make an > overall decision in this regard and let it be the rule we use for all > income. I hope that Inkscape won't have any objections to it, and would Thats too bad. Indeed there are objections voiced to this. > be happy to answer any additional questions you have. One other question that came up was if this income would include "pass-through" funds, such as situations we've had in the past where Google or some other organization sponsored travel or funded work by a developer by donating it to Inkscape via the Conservancy, and then the developer was paid via Inkscape. Would the rule cover this type of income as well? Bryce

1 0

[REFERENDUM] Paying GSoC mentors for mentoring
by Bryce Harrington 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

All board members, please vote on each of the following proposals. Proposals: 1. We (the Inkscape organization) receive $500/mentor paid by Google. Should we: [ ] a. Keep the money for the Inkscape organization [ ] b. Pay it to the mentor. The mentor can opt to refuse the payment, in which case it will go to the Inkscape organization. 2. If the $500/mentor payments are made to the mentor (1b), should 10% of this amount be given back to the Software Freedom Conservancy? [ ] a. Yes, withhold 10% of mentor payments for the Conservancy [ ] b. No, do not withhold 10% from mentor payments. 3. If the $500/mentor payments are made to the mentor (1b), should 10% of this amount be kept for Inkscape itself? [ ] a. Yes, keep 10% for the Inkscape organization. [ ] b. No, do not withhold 10% from mentor payments. Background: Historically most mentors have let Inkscape keep the $500, but it was always our (unwritten) intention that the disposition of this money was up to the discretion of the mentor. More recently mentors have asked to be paid this money, so they can use it for offsetting travel costs for LGM and GSoC events, or for other purposes. However, Bradley Kuhn points out that this is not the standard policy of Google; they merely pay out the $500/mentor to the organization, and it's up to them what to do with it. Our involvement in GSoC pre-dates the existance of the Inkscape board, and thus our approach is more of a tradition than an official policy. Mr. Kuhn wishes to know our official policy on this matter. He has also asked that we consider contributing 10% of money received by Inkscape back to the Conservancy (see the other referendum posted today), to help offset costs for bookkeeping and other needs. There is a question as to whether this 10% would be required of mentor payments as well. Bryce

7 18

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Bryce Harrington 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:50:28AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Bryce, thanks for the details on the GSoC payments. I'll reach out to > each mentor and ask them what they want to do. I have all their email > addresses except for: Krzysztof Kosiński When you ask them, can you also ask them if they want the 10% to go to Conservancy? (Regardless of what we decide about the 10% in general, we'd like it to be an opt-in thing available to the mentors.) Bryce

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Josh Andler 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...41...> wrote: > Ok, but the tradition has been to check in with the Committee each year > regardless. If there's no objection, I'd prefer to always do that. > After all, the makeup of the Committee can eventually change and I think > it's worthwhile to consider the question fresh each year. If this does end up being asked each year, my preference is that we do it at the time we apply to be a mentoring org. Cheers, Josh

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Bryce Harrington 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

The Inkscape Board has voted officially on the following issue: Should the $500/mentor paid from GSoC be paid to the mentor, unless they specify otherwise? For: 4 Against: 0 Abstain: 1 No Vote: 2 The $500 paid by Google should be paid to the mentors. The mentor can decline the payment, in which case it will be paid to Inkscape. Ref.: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20121126223614.GB2… We are still collecting votes on the question of the 10% payment to the Conservacy. Several board members are leaning to Yes, but haven't cast a vote due to a question of what "earmarked funds" would cover. If we can get guidance from SFC on this, I think we can get the voting wrapped up on this question as well. Bryce On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:49:19PM -0800, Josh Andler wrote: > Hi Bradley, > > In response to both issues. 1) As I've stated in the past, I am okay > with the project paying mentors for their efforts. So, consider that > an official "Yes" from me on this issue. 2) As for the 10% payment to > the Conservancy, I am in favor of that as well. So, another "Yes" for > the record on that issue too. > > Cheers, > Josh > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn > <bkuhn@...41...> wrote: > > Inkscape Committee, > > > > Conservancy is about to invoice for the GSoC funds for 2012. In the > > past, some Conservancy projects, including Inkscape, have decided to pay > > mentors the proceeds of the mentor payments to the mentors. This is not > > required by GSoC's program -- from Google's perspective, the money goes > > to Conservancy for Inkscape's earmarked account, since Conservancy is > > Inkscape's organization. > > > > However, if Inkscape decides to pay a stipend to the mentors, this can > > be done, in thanks for their work mentoring students. Please let me > > know if you'd like to do this. > > > > The amount can be anything between $0-$500. Google gives $500/mentor, > > and per our Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement between Conservancy and > > Inkscape, Conservancy gets 0% of any funds given to Inkscape [0], so, in > > this case, all of the funds could theoretically be given to the mentors > > in appreciation for their work. > > > > > > Please let me know if you want to do this again. As always, it's > > entirely up to you; the funds can also just stay in Inkscape's earmarked > > account. > > > > > > [0] Note that in another thread that's stalled, I raised the issue of > > giving back 10% to Conservancy; please see that other thread for > > details. I'd like to note that Conservancy puts a lot of work in > > coordinating the invoicing details with Google, and has done a > > pretty good job at it in previous years, in addition to the other > > services that Conservancy regularly gives to Inkscape. As it > > stands, I have to do all accounting/invoicing work myself, because > > Conservancy can't afford a bookkeeper. Our hope is to raise enough > > money to put some financial resources behind improving our > > bookkeeping, and asking projects to support Conservancy is part of > > that. I'm sorry to put such a fine point on this, but Conservancy > > is really hurting for resources and we'd appreciate your help. > > -- > > Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy

2 1

Re: [Inkscape-board] Paying a stipend to mentors from GSoC 2012?
by Josh Andler 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Krzysztof's email is tweenk.pl@...23... On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...41...> wrote: > Bryce, thanks for the details on the GSoC payments. I'll reach out to > each mentor and ask them what they want to do. I have all their email > addresses except for: Krzysztof Kosiński > > Can someone send me Krzysztof's email address? > > Bryce Harrington wrote at 18:22 (EST) on Monday: >> The $500 paid by Google should be paid to the mentors. The mentor >> can decline the payment, in which case it will be paid to >> Inkscape. > > Just one subtle point of clarification: the money goes to Inkscape > first, as from Google's point of view, the payment is a donation to the > Inkscape project. Inkscape, in turn, is deciding to fund the mentors. > > From your perspective, the outcome is the same, of course, but I just > wanted to clarify that point because the IRS would probably see the two > situations differently. > -- > Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-board] Update of Committee & other matters for Conservancy/Inkscape discussion (was Re: New board members)
by Bryce Harrington 15 Nov '12

15 Nov '12

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:13:22PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > (a) The older FSA's have a bug that Tony discovered when he came to > work for Conservancy. Specifically, they don't have a clear > hand-off from the original signatories of the FSA to the > Project's Leadership Committee. Ideally, the Signatories cede > their authority to the Committee, so we don't have to bug > former committee members with getting signatures if they decide > to move on from the project. The new FSA template fixes this. > > (c) Now might be a good time to update the Representation section > of the FSA. Right now, as you see from (0) above, it requires > explicit resignations to change the Committee, and perhaps that > is too burdensome and problematic, particularly for people who > have moved on from the project. Conservancy can work with you > to redrafted the Representation section to better reflect your > current realities of leadership. As you see in the template, > there a few suggestions of how to draft Representation > sections. Yes, can you draft up replacement text for the 'Representation of the Project in the Conservancy' section? I'm gathering that we need the bit about the "signatories shall initially comprise..." and the text about removing and adding members to cover the bug you mentioned? That seems fairly uncontroversial and basically matches how I think we all assume the board is supposed to work. I notice there is text about handling the case where a committee member (or the committee in large) becomes unreachable. Something like that sounds worthwhile to add, although we probably should vote on that. I've already called for a vote on giving 10% of revenues to the Conservancy. One question I have is that the text says "earmarked revenue". What does "earmarked" mean in this context? Aside from the above, are there any other significant points in the new template we should consider, particularly ones that would require voting on? I see some changes are just shuffling sections around and refactoring verbage. I think once the above points have all gotten voted on, a re-drafting of the FSA would be in order, which can include reformatting and textual refactoring as you see fit. Then probably one more vote on the final product. I suppose this redrafting will require everyone re-signing it? Bryce

3 3