On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 07:07:45PM -0500, Tony Sebro wrote: > On 02/11/2015 06:57 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:31:08PM -0500, Tony Sebro wrote: > >> The goal here is to prevent a corporation from taking > >> control over the project by hiring PLC members and/or otherwise > >> dominating the PLC, so that they could exploit Conservancy's nonprofit > >> structure to handle activities that really should fall under their > >> for-profit structure. It's not my intent to make this section onerous; > >> we can discuss ways to make it fit Inkscape's community standards. > > For much of the life of the project, Ted, Tim, and I all worked for > > Canonical, and served on the board as the project founders. Canonical > > could have cared less about Inkscape and had zero influence on board > > matters. > > > > Presently Jon and I both work for Samsung, having both just recently > > joined there. Samsung cares even less about Inkscape than Canonical > > did. Yet if this provision goes into effect, one or the other of us > > will have to step down. > > > Understood. For what it's worth, I've never received anyone complain or > insinuate that Inkscape is controlled or influenced by any one > corporation. Still: if an issue were to come up in the future, the > Inkscape Committee may benefit from avoiding even the optics of influence. > > What if we moved from "more than one member employed" to "more than 1/3" > or "more than 40%"? Would that give the Committee enough wiggle room > going forward? Probably should speak in fractions of sevenths, otherwise rounding is ambiguous. A hard limit of 3/7th would avoid majority control by any one employer while being flexible with membership.