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.