Couple of thoughts below:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:13:02PM +0100, Jonathan Neuhauser wrote:
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
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
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!
Am 07.11.2022 um 18:58 schrieb Ted Gould:
> Howdy folks,
> Sorry for the delay. Here is a link to the current proposal:
> 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!
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