On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:24:08PM -0800, Josh Andler wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...24...> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:41:06PM +0100, Tavmjong Bah 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).
It is. As an aside, I just want to make sure that when it comes to mentor payments that we establish language explicitly stating that Inkscape is paying the mentors so it is clear how it actually works. This way, should the board agree to it, we can pay mentors as soon as GSoC has concluded. This way it's not perceived that we are floating money for Google, and it accurately reflects that the project gets paid by Google and we are choosing to pay the mentors if they desire (the difference is that we have money in the bank and can choose to pay the mentors before our next payment from Google).
Is that to deal with the delays that sometimes occur with Google getting the checks cut for us?
The one thing we'd have to keep in mind is that we always keep enough $$ in the bank to cover the cost until we get paid.
Also, we haven't discussed when this 10% will kick in. I propose that it start when the new agreement is in place.
Seems reasonable. Unless anyone voices a difference of opinion, I'll include this as part of the plan.
Sounds good to me.
Bryce