12:58 p.m.
Howdy folks,
Sorry for the delay. Here is a link to the current proposal:
https://office.inkscape.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/jm7qoX9cK7LRnYG
What I wanted to do is kinda pull together all the feedback. Here is the the ideas that I
think came up in the PLC meeting (not all by me) but I wanted to write down for those who
couldn't make it:
People generally seemed happy with the idea of paying for reviews/mentorship though it
seemed like folks weren't sure on how much seemed right. Probably a different amount
for each.
We talked about reimbursing for a Creative Cloud license to create test files
Some additional thoughts.
I think we need to either specify the reviewers/mentors in the proposal or a process to
choose them just to ensure there is no conflicts of interest, etc.
The proposal was written up to suggest that we'd do the first 6 weeks, and then a PLC
vote. I can't speak for everyone, but I think the review team could decide on the
second six weeks not the PLC. The PLC is slow 😄
We should probably include a comment in the job request mentioning the net30 payment
schedule, just to be entirely clear for anyone who would apply.
I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if Pono knows, but we should probably clarify
licensing and/or copyright ownership. This seems to me to be work-for-hire which would
mean that Inkscape would own copyright. I don't think that folks would have an issue
with that as we'd release it as GPLv2+ with everything else. But we should be clear.
Overall, I'll say again I'm excited about the progress on this. Thanks to all who
contributed!
Ted
4:13 p.m.
Hi Ted,
thanks for your feedback! I had already included the first two points
after the PLC meeting.
Regarding the mentoring / hiring process: this is a very good point.
I've modified the proposal such that 1) the hiring team is appointed by
the PLC in the original vote 2) it consists of 1 SFC staff plus up to 4
contributors (we already have volunteers), which are excluded from
applying themselves, 3) they need to agree unanimously on a possible
extension of the project, working around the alleged slowness of the PLC.
Re: copyright: this should be specified in the contract, and I'm sure
the SFC has templates for that. Publishing all results of the project
under GPL2+ terms should be part of the contract. Whether the copyright
holder is technically Inkscape or the candidate could be worked out; I
suppose in the latter case the candidate could also publish it under a
different license. IMO this does not need to be fully decided when the
PLC votes on the project.
Best regards,
Jonathan
Am 07.11.2022 um 18:58 schrieb Ted Gould:
Howdy folks,
Sorry for the delay. Here is a link to the current proposal:
https://office.inkscape.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/jm7qoX9cK7LRnYG
What I wanted to do is kinda pull together all the feedback. Here is
the the ideas that I think came up in the PLC meeting (not all by me)
but I wanted to write down for those who couldn't make it:
*
People generally seemed happy with the idea of paying for
reviews/mentorship though it seemed like folks weren't sure on how
much seemed right. Probably a different amount for each.
*
We talked about reimbursing for a Creative Cloud license to create
test files
Some additional thoughts.
*
I think we need to either specify the reviewers/mentors in the
proposal or a process to choose them just to ensure there is no
conflicts of interest, etc.
*
The proposal was written up to suggest that we'd do the first 6
weeks, and then a PLC vote. I can't speak for everyone, but I
think the review team could decide on the second six weeks not the
PLC. The PLC is slow 😄
*
We should probably include a comment in the job request mentioning
the net30 payment schedule, just to be entirely clear for anyone
who would apply.
*
I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if Pono knows, but we should
probably clarify licensing and/or copyright ownership. This seems
to me to be work-for-hire which would mean that Inkscape would own
copyright. I don't think that folks would have an issue with that
as we'd release it as GPLv2+ with everything else. But we should
be clear.
Overall, I'll say again I'm excited about the progress on this. Thanks
to all who contributed!
Ted
2:16 a.m.
On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:26 -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
> I suppose in the latter case the candidate could also publish
it
> under a different license.
I think this is what I'd be most concerned about avoiding. It would
be a real shame if they sold the code Inkscape paid to develop under
a proprietary license.
This would be more impractical for C++ project, but is a much greater
risk for python.
Since this project will be python, I think it's important to have this
work for hire process defined. The ultimate owner will be the Software
Freedom Conservancy, that's probably fine.
Martin,
12:29 p.m.
Couple of thoughts below:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:13:02PM +0100, Jonathan Neuhauser wrote:
Hi Ted,
thanks for your feedback! I had already included the first two points after
the PLC meeting.
Regarding the mentoring / hiring process: this is a very good point. I've
modified the proposal such that 1) the hiring team is appointed by the PLC
in the original vote 2) it consists of 1 SFC staff plus up to 4 contributors
(we already have volunteers), which are excluded from applying themselves,
3) they need to agree unanimously on a possible extension of the project,
working around the alleged slowness of the PLC.
These all seem good to me. And asking for maybe 10 hours of time from each
of the reviewers seems like a reasonable place to start (with option to renew
if it takes longer than that). This would be for the dual purpose of
documenting what we are asking of the volunteers and tieing it to the stipend.
Re: copyright: this should be specified in the contract, and I'm
sure the
SFC has templates for that. Publishing all results of the project under
GPL2+ terms should be part of the contract. Whether the copyright holder is
technically Inkscape or the candidate could be worked out; I suppose in the
latter case the candidate could also publish it under a different license.
IMO this does not need to be fully decided when the PLC votes on the
project.
As Martin also mentioned, one option would be for the copyright to be granted
to SFC that we hold for Inkscape. This is fairly standard in our contracts,
combined with requiring the works be produced under a GPL-compatible license.
Let me know if there are any other questions!
-Pono
Best regards,
Jonathan
Am 07.11.2022 um 18:58 schrieb Ted Gould:
> Howdy folks,
>
> Sorry for the delay. Here is a link to the current proposal:
>
> https://office.inkscape.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/jm7qoX9cK7LRnYG
>
> What I wanted to do is kinda pull together all the feedback. Here is the
> the ideas that I think came up in the PLC meeting (not all by me) but I
> wanted to write down for those who couldn't make it:
>
> *
> People generally seemed happy with the idea of paying for
> reviews/mentorship though it seemed like folks weren't sure on how
> much seemed right. Probably a different amount for each.
> *
> We talked about reimbursing for a Creative Cloud license to create
> test files
>
>
> Some additional thoughts.
>
> *
> I think we need to either specify the reviewers/mentors in the
> proposal or a process to choose them just to ensure there is no
> conflicts of interest, etc.
> *
> The proposal was written up to suggest that we'd do the first 6
> weeks, and then a PLC vote. I can't speak for everyone, but I
> think the review team could decide on the second six weeks not the
> PLC. The PLC is slow 😄
> *
> We should probably include a comment in the job request mentioning
> the net30 payment schedule, just to be entirely clear for anyone
> who would apply.
> *
> I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if Pono knows, but we should
> probably clarify licensing and/or copyright ownership. This seems
> to me to be work-for-hire which would mean that Inkscape would own
> copyright. I don't think that folks would have an issue with that
> as we'd release it as GPLv2+ with everything else. But we should
> be clear.
>
>
> Overall, I'll say again I'm excited about the progress on this. Thanks
> to all who contributed!
>
> Ted
_______________________________________________
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board(a)lists.inkscape.org
To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave(a)lists.inkscape.org
318
days inactive
319
days old
inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Daniel Pono Takamori -
doctormoï¼ gmail.com -
Jonathan Neuhauser -
Ted Gould