[REFERENDUM] 10% of earmarked revenue to support Conservancy
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
I vote yes.
Cheers, Josh On Nov 14, 2012 7:18 PM, "Bryce Harrington" <bryce@...24...> wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I agree in principle with giving 10% of Inkscape earmarked revenue to the SFC but before I vote yes I want some clarification of exactly what is meant by "Inkscape earmarked revenue". For example, I recently went to the GSOC mentor's summit for which travel expenses are being reimbursed by Google via the SFC. Is this reimbursement subject to the 10%?
Tav
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 19:17 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:01 +0100, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
I agree in principle with giving 10% of Inkscape earmarked revenue to the SFC but before I vote yes I want some clarification of exactly what is meant by "Inkscape earmarked revenue". For example, I recently went to the GSOC mentor's summit for which travel expenses are being reimbursed by Google via the SFC. Is this reimbursement subject to the 10%?
I agree with the 10%, though clarification on how the earmarking happens would be good. I believe that it is likely that we'd specify income streams that would apply. For instance, all GSoC mentor payments, all book royalties, etc.
--Ted
I'm going to cast my vote as Yes.
I have not heard back from Bradley on the question of what "earmarked" means, but basically I'm accepting that it means "there will be a process for excluding some items from this where it makes sense," and I'm fine with that even if it's a bit fuzzily defined.
Bryce
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Josh Andler Yes Tavmjong Bah ? # leaning Yes Ted Gould ? # leaning Yes Bryce Harrington Yes Johan Engelen ? Tim Cole ? Jon Cruz ?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I am leaning Yes too. I had not yet replied because I was waiting for the "earmarked" too. Does this include all donations? Hmm perhaps I should try to read-up on all Inkscape's income sources...
-Johan
On 26-11-2012 23:43, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Josh Andler Yes Tavmjong Bah ? # leaning Yes Ted Gould ? # leaning Yes Bryce Harrington Yes Johan Engelen ? Tim Cole ? Jon Cruz ?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I think yes. We rely on them enough that it seems appropriate.
-mental
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:53:32 +0100, Johan Engelen <j.b.c.engelen@...51...> wrote:
I am leaning Yes too. I had not yet replied because I was waiting for the "earmarked" too. Does this include all donations? Hmm perhaps I should try to read-up on all Inkscape's income sources...
-Johan
On 26-11-2012 23:43, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Josh Andler Yes Tavmjong Bah ? # leaning Yes Ted Gould ? # leaning Yes Bryce Harrington Yes Johan Engelen ? Tim Cole ? Jon Cruz ?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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, Joshand
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, whenI
became a full-time employee -- which was the only way to keep it going with the services it promises (the other optionwould
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 astaff
of two, but obviously we need financial resources to be ableto
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 toprovide
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 anew
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases,
vmware,
SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
@Tav and Ted, I got clarification on "earmarked". Basically as I understand the answer it means, "That portion of the money coming to the Conservancy's bank account that is for the Inkscape project."
Full response is below.
Once you've reviewed, let me know if you have additional questions or are ready to finalize your votes.
(Also, anyone who wishes to alter a previously cast vote on this item based on the new info is of course welcomed to do so, but please do so quickly, as I will be communicating our decision to the Conservancy once we have reached a majority.)
Bryce
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 20:17 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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.
In the preamble, the FSA mention:
Conservancy's Board of Directors has approved the establishment of a fund to receive donations of cash and other property earmarked for support of the Project and to make disbursements in furtherance of the Project's mission (the ``Project Fund'').
This Project Fund, which is the revenue Conservancy has "earmarked" for the Inkscape project, are all donations, receivables, revenue, income, etc., for which the donor has indicated as a donation for "Inkscape", or Conservancy has any reason to believe the intent for the funds was specifically for Inkscape (e.g., when Packt sends us royalty book payments for Inkscape books).
Conservancy tracks carefully this income as Inkscape's revenue, and does not spend it without consultation of the Inkscape leadership committee.
The easiest analogy to the for-profit world that we've found to explain this is to think of Inkscape as a wholly owned subsidiary of Conservancy. Inkscape has revenue and funds, which is really part of Conservancy's revenue, but Conservancy has an agreement with Inkscape that indicates the funds are held earmarked for Conservancy. Conservancy then handles the administrative and other services Inkscape has come to expect from Conservancy.
Historically, Conservancy had sufficient funding from other sources such that all funds earmarked for Inkscape were spent only on Inkscape-specific things. The proposed change here would take 10% of every donation or other type of income for Inkscape to keep Conservancy running.
I do encourage you, BTW, to take a look at Conservancy's annual filings and audit, which includes some information about this. FY 2011's is still under preparation (literally while I'm writing this :), but FY 2010's and the earlier ones are on our website at: http://sfconservancy.org/about/filings/
Please let me know if you have additional questions, and Tony or I will respond. Again, sorry that we didn't get a response out to the message during Thanksgiving week.
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:19 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
@Tav and Ted, I got clarification on "earmarked". Basically as I understand the answer it means, "That portion of the money coming to the Conservancy's bank account that is for the Inkscape project."
Full response is below.
Once you've reviewed, let me know if you have additional questions or are ready to finalize your votes.
(Also, anyone who wishes to alter a previously cast vote on this item based on the new info is of course welcomed to do so, but please do so quickly, as I will be communicating our decision to the Conservancy once we have reached a majority.)
Bryce
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.
Also, we haven't discussed when this 10% will kick in. I propose that it start when the new agreement is in place.
Tav
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:
@Tav and Ted, I got clarification on "earmarked". Basically as I understand the answer it means, "That portion of the money coming to the Conservancy's bank account that is for the Inkscape project."
Full response is below.
Once you've reviewed, let me know if you have additional questions or are ready to finalize your votes.
(Also, anyone who wishes to alter a previously cast vote on this item based on the new info is of course welcomed to do so, but please do so quickly, as I will be communicating our decision to the Conservancy once we have reached a majority.)
Bryce
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).
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.
Bryce
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).
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.
Cheers, Josh
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 $$ in the bank to cover the cost until we get paid.
Also, we haven't discussed when this 10% will kick in. I propose that it start when the new agreement is in place.
Seems reasonable. Unless anyone voices a difference of opinion, I'll include this as part of the plan.
Sounds good to me.
Bryce
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...24...> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:24:08PM -0800, Josh Andler wrote:
It is. As an aside, I just want to make sure that when it comes to mentor payments that we establish language explicitly stating that Inkscape is paying the mentors so it is clear how it actually works. This way, should the board agree to it, we can pay mentors as soon as GSoC has concluded. This way it's not perceived that we are floating money for Google, and it accurately reflects that the project gets paid by Google and we are choosing to pay the mentors if they desire (the difference is that we have money in the bank and can choose to pay the mentors before our next payment from Google).
Is that to deal with the delays that sometimes occur with Google getting the checks cut for us?
Yes. It's become evident in my years as Admin that people are expecting the payments not too long after the program concludes. It doesn't seem like an odd expectation given how compensation typically happens with other "jobs". One thing I've learned is that the reasons people "need" the payment to be by a given date varies greatly.
The one thing we'd have to keep in mind is that we always keep enough $$ in the bank to cover the cost until we get paid.
Absolutely.
Cheers, Josh
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
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 18:21 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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 guess I viewed it as:
If the mentor chose to take the money for him/herself we wouldn't have the 10% given to the Conservancy taken out (so the mentor got $450).
If the mentor decided to leave the money for Inkscape then 10% would go to the Conservancy.
Does that align with what you're thinking?
--Ted
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:02:10PM -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 18:21 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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 guess I viewed it as:
If the mentor chose to take the money for him/herself we wouldn't have the 10% given to the Conservancy taken out (so the mentor got $450).
If the mentor decided to leave the money for Inkscape then 10% would go to the Conservancy.
Does that align with what you're thinking?
The vote we held was whether the 10% should be withheld at all if the mentor chooses to keep it. So, in that case the mentor would be getting $500, not $450.
So, what I'm thinking is we either need to UNvote that decision, or push back on SFC to not take 10% from mentor payments unless they agree to it.
Bryce
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 19:14 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:02:10PM -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
I guess I viewed it as:
If the mentor chose to take the money for him/herself we wouldn't have the 10% given to the Conservancy taken out (so the mentor got $450).
If the mentor decided to leave the money for Inkscape then 10% would go to the Conservancy.
Does that align with what you're thinking?
The vote we held was whether the 10% should be withheld at all if the mentor chooses to keep it. So, in that case the mentor would be getting $500, not $450.
So, what I'm thinking is we either need to UNvote that decision, or push back on SFC to not take 10% from mentor payments unless they agree to it.
For me, I looked at that as the pass through vs. earmarked case. In the case where the mentor is taking the funds effectively Inkscape is being a pass through. When the funds actually hit our account is when it's earmarked.
--Ted
From the beginning, my interpretation was that the SFC was getting 10% no
matter what for mentor payments... we're choosing to give money to mentors, it's not the same as reimbursement from Google for the summit.
I thought that I voted that the mentor pay the 10% rather than the project (or have it withheld). This way we're not paying out 110% for mentor participation of what Google pays (at least until we get fundraising figured out).
Does that make sense?
Cheers, Josh On Dec 4, 2012 7:02 PM, "Ted Gould" <ted@...1...> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 18:21 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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 guess I viewed it as:
If the mentor chose to take the money for him/herself we wouldn't have the 10% given to the Conservancy taken out (so the mentor got $450).
If the mentor decided to leave the money for Inkscape then 10% would go to the Conservancy.
Does that align with what you're thinking?
--Ted
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:18:18PM -0800, Josh Andler wrote:
From the beginning, my interpretation was that the SFC was getting 10% no
matter what for mentor payments... we're choosing to give money to mentors, it's not the same as reimbursement from Google for the summit.
I thought that I voted that the mentor pay the 10% rather than the project (or have it withheld). This way we're not paying out 110% for mentor participation of what Google pays (at least until we get fundraising figured out).
Indeed, you did vote that way; but the majority of votes were that the 10% would not be withheld from the $500:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30157938
Bryce
Bryce,
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that I did understand correctly initially and that I want misunderstanding anything.
Cheers, Josh On Dec 4, 2012 9:20 PM, "Bryce Harrington" <bryce@...24...> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:18:18PM -0800, Josh Andler wrote:
From the beginning, my interpretation was that the SFC was getting 10%
no
matter what for mentor payments... we're choosing to give money to
mentors,
it's not the same as reimbursement from Google for the summit.
I thought that I voted that the mentor pay the 10% rather than the
project
(or have it withheld). This way we're not paying out 110% for mentor participation of what Google pays (at least until we get fundraising figured out).
Indeed, you did vote that way; but the majority of votes were that the 10% would not be withheld from the $500:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30157938
Bryce
Yes, as I understand it, it would include all monetary donations to Inkscape, except any items that are not "earmarked".
Bryce
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:53:32PM +0100, Johan Engelen wrote:
I am leaning Yes too. I had not yet replied because I was waiting for the "earmarked" too. Does this include all donations? Hmm perhaps I should try to read-up on all Inkscape's income sources...
-Johan
On 26-11-2012 23:43, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Josh Andler Yes Tavmjong Bah ? # leaning Yes Ted Gould ? # leaning Yes Bryce Harrington Yes Johan Engelen ? Tim Cole ? Jon Cruz ?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I vote yes.
On Nov 26, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Josh Andler Yes Tavmjong Bah ? # leaning Yes Ted Gould ? # leaning Yes Bryce Harrington Yes Johan Engelen ? Tim Cole ? Jon Cruz ?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I vote yes.
-Johan
On 26-11-2012 23:43, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Josh Andler Yes Tavmjong Bah ? # leaning Yes Ted Gould ? # leaning Yes Bryce Harrington Yes Johan Engelen ? Tim Cole ? Jon Cruz ?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
participants (7)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Johan Engelen -
Jon Cruz -
Josh Andler -
MenTaLguY -
Tavmjong Bah -
Ted Gould