On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:58:34PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:41:06PM +0100, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:19 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote: I agree with allowing the Conservancy to keep 10% of "earmarked" money except in the case that the Conservancy is acting as a conduit for reimbursing certain expenses. I haven't thought carefully which expenses to include but as one example of where I don't think the Conservancy should keep 10% is in the reimbursement of travel expenses to the GSOC Mentor's meeting that are paid by Google. I am guessing that Google doesn't have the concept of "overhead" with regards to this kind of payment so the attendee would be out 10% of their travel costs.
That's a good point. Sounds like we need to define "pass-thru income" for cases like these (and the mentor payments).
Earlier we voted that 10% should not be withheld for the conservancy for mentor payments. As per the email response from Bradley, if we choose to let them take 10% in general (as the votes appear to support), they would want to take 10% from mentor payments as well.
So, we appear to have two votes which contradict each other. I'm not sure what to do here. Anyone have some suggestions?
I'm moving my vote to Abstain until we have this conflict sorted out.
Bryce