New contribution/funding pages
Dear board,
I've put together the pages which are linked from our new welcome screen. They are there to encourage more of our users to contribute to the project and know how they might be able to make Inkscape better.
The first is the contribute time page: https://inkscape.org/splash/contribute/
The second is the funding page: https://inkscape.org/splash/support/
The funding page links to a new supporting programmers page: https://inkscape.org/support-us/programmers/
I've tried to encapsulate where we are as a project on funding developers and what advice we've been given from the SFC. While it makes me sad that we can't seem to fund developers directly or event give links to users who want to fund developers, I understand the reasons.
Since this is an important topic I'd like for the board to review the pages, and the wording. Once I've got the pages to a place where everything is satisfied, I'll send the SFC an FYI email with the links so they know what we're saying about funding.
Does this seem like a reasonable plan?
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Thanks for working on this Martin! On Apr 15 2021, at 5:33 am, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
The funding page links to a new supporting programmers page: https://inkscape.org/support-us/programmers/
I've tried to encapsulate where we are as a project on funding developers and what advice we've been given from the SFC. While it makes me sad that we can't seem to fund developers directly or event give links to users who want to fund developers, I understand the reasons.
My understanding is that we can list folks that have external funding modes, we just have to be careful to ensure that we don't guarantee inclusion of work or that any work will be done at all for their money. (or that their input would be considered on a Patreon) They are giving their money to the person they're working with and the only relationship they have is between themselves and that person/company. By being on the list the Inkscape project isn't guaranteeing they won't be scammed. I think that any contributor to Inkscape should be able to be listed there (with the disclaimer above) with perhaps a couple links. We should perhaps create a sponsorship type that would be for consultancies that would allow them to be listed. I think we could start with a fixed amount, but if it grew it might be interesting to do a five percent model or something like that. If we were going to create this, and I think we should, I think we should also do it for artists/designers. Where it could be "hire folks that use Inkscape." While perhaps not as directly contributing to the project (though many do) having more people making money using Inkscape I think only helps the economics of our situation. We should figure out how to promote both groups. It would be a rising tide for all boats¹. Ted ¹ Global warming for all boats? Too soon?
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 10:29 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
Thanks for working on this Martin!
Thanks Ted for the review,
My understanding is that we can list folks that have external funding modes, we just have to be careful to ensure that we don't guarantee inclusion of work or that any work will be done at all for their money. (or that their input would be considered on a Patreon) They are giving their money to the person they're working with and the only relationship they have is between themselves and that person/company. By being on the list the Inkscape project isn't guaranteeing they won't be scammed.
I've added a new section based on Maren's response. It's a little more "the modifications may not end up in Inkscape" and less "you could be scammed" but both thoughts are important.
I've added your points here and expanded it with a contact us link and by adding a list of contributors looking for user funding. I've added Tav and Marc's patreons as a sample (I haven't asked them) so take this as a sample so far. This can all be controlled via the admin interface.
https://inkscape.org/support-us/fund-contributors/
Please review and let me know.
I think that any contributor to Inkscape should be able to be listed there (with the disclaimer above) with perhaps a couple links. We should perhaps create a sponsorship type that would be for consultancies that would allow them to be listed. I think we could start with a fixed amount, but if it grew it might be interesting to do a five percent model or something like that.
We have a sponsorship level which is for companies that let their employees work on Inkscape. Marc's employer is in this category. But I think you mean, for people who do this kind of work to push some of the money back into Inkscape's charity fund (i.e. to the SFC) right?
If we were going to create this, and I think we should, I think we should also do it for artists/designers. Where it could be "hire folks that use Inkscape." While perhaps not as directly contributing to the project (though many do) having more people making money using Inkscape I think only helps the economics of our situation.
I agree. A solid list of people who work with Inkscape would be good form. This could be a fourth section on the previous page "Hire designers who work with Inkscape" or as a second section of people on this page. Having them as people who contribute to Inkscape's fund would be a way to maintain a relationship, but of course would involve getting more ducks in a row with the SFC too.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
¹ Global warming for all boats? Too soon?
² For the Suez, too late.
I think this looks great. Thanks for all the work, Doc! I like the current wording and explanations. -C
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:15 PM Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 10:29 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
Thanks for working on this Martin!
Thanks Ted for the review,
My understanding is that we can list folks that have external funding modes, we just have to be careful to ensure that we don't guarantee inclusion of work or that any work will be done at all for their money. (or that their input would be considered on a Patreon) They are giving their money to the person they're working with and the only relationship they have is between themselves and that person/company. By being on the list the Inkscape project isn't guaranteeing they won't be scammed.
I've added a new section based on Maren's response. It's a little more "the modifications may not end up in Inkscape" and less "you could be scammed" but both thoughts are important.
I've added your points here and expanded it with a contact us link and by adding a list of contributors looking for user funding. I've added Tav and Marc's patreons as a sample (I haven't asked them) so take this as a sample so far. This can all be controlled via the admin interface.
https://inkscape.org/support-us/fund-contributors/
Please review and let me know.
I think that any contributor to Inkscape should be able to be listed there (with the disclaimer above) with perhaps a couple links. We should perhaps create a sponsorship type that would be for consultancies that would allow them to be listed. I think we could start with a fixed amount, but if it grew it might be interesting to do a five percent model or something like that.
We have a sponsorship level which is for companies that let their employees work on Inkscape. Marc's employer is in this category. But I think you mean, for people who do this kind of work to push some of the money back into Inkscape's charity fund (i.e. to the SFC) right?
If we were going to create this, and I think we should, I think we should also do it for artists/designers. Where it could be "hire folks that use Inkscape." While perhaps not as directly contributing to the project (though many do) having more people making money using Inkscape I think only helps the economics of our situation.
I agree. A solid list of people who work with Inkscape would be good form. This could be a fourth section on the previous page "Hire designers who work with Inkscape" or as a second section of people on this page. Having them as people who contribute to Inkscape's fund would be a way to maintain a relationship, but of course would involve getting more ducks in a row with the SFC too.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
¹ Global warming for all boats? Too soon?
² For the Suez, too late.
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Update.
Marc provided a review and declined to be listed because he'd need to confirm with his job about being listed etc.
Marc suggested a change to the first paragraph:
From: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is not used to pay programmers or other contributors to make Inkscape. Instead contributors themselves must be self-funded or purely volunteers. Users who wish to help fund Inkscape contributors may contact them directly."
To: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is not used to respond to user needs, only for the general public interest. Instead contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements through direct funding or even bartering."
Patrick also reviewed it from the vectors channel on rocket chat, he had a lot more issues, but suggested making sure people could be removed for violations to the code of conduct. I've added the section to the bottom:
""" # Can people be removed from being listed? The list is meant as a sort of business index of people providing services. But if contributors violate Inkscape community code of conduct they may be removed from this listing in the same way that they would be removed from other parts of the website. """
He suggested more, an issue with making sure people are actually active in the community. But I couldn't make anything line up with what you were saying ted about keeping things open and not being seen to be arbiters or guarantors. Any ideas that might suffice?
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 18:40 +0100, C R wrote:
I think this looks great. Thanks for all the work, Doc! I like the current wording and explanations. -C
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:15 PM Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 10:29 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
Thanks for working on this Martin!
Thanks Ted for the review,
My understanding is that we can list folks that have external
funding
modes, we just have to be careful to ensure that we don't
guarantee
inclusion of work or that any work will be done at all for their money. (or that their input would be considered on a Patreon)
They
are giving their money to the person they're working with and the only relationship they have is between themselves and that person/company. By being on the list the Inkscape project isn't guaranteeing they won't be scammed.
I've added a new section based on Maren's response. It's a little more "the modifications may not end up in Inkscape" and less "you could be scammed" but both thoughts are important.
I've added your points here and expanded it with a contact us link and by adding a list of contributors looking for user funding. I've added Tav and Marc's patreons as a sample (I haven't asked them) so take this as a sample so far. This can all be controlled via the admin interface.
https://inkscape.org/support-us/fund-contributors/
Please review and let me know.
I think that any contributor to Inkscape should be able to be
listed
there (with the disclaimer above) with perhaps a couple links. We should perhaps create a sponsorship type that would be for consultancies that would allow them to be listed. I think we
could
start with a fixed amount, but if it grew it might be interesting
to
do a five percent model or something like that.
We have a sponsorship level which is for companies that let their employees work on Inkscape. Marc's employer is in this category. But I think you mean, for people who do this kind of work to push some of the money back into Inkscape's charity fund (i.e. to the SFC) right?
If we were going to create this, and I think we should, I think
we
should also do it for artists/designers. Where it could be "hire folks that use Inkscape." While perhaps not as directly
contributing
to the project (though many do) having more people making money
using
Inkscape I think only helps the economics of our situation.
I agree. A solid list of people who work with Inkscape would be good form. This could be a fourth section on the previous page "Hire designers who work with Inkscape" or as a second section of people on this page. Having them as people who contribute to Inkscape's fund would be a way to maintain a relationship, but of course would involve getting more ducks in a row with the SFC too.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
¹ Global warming for all boats? Too soon?
² For the Suez, too late.
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
On Apr 16 2021, at 3:30 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Marc suggested a change to the first paragraph:
From: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is not used to pay programmers or other contributors to make Inkscape. Instead contributors themselves must be self-funded or purely volunteers. Users who wish to help fund Inkscape contributors may contact them directly."
To: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is not used to respond to user needs, only for the general public interest. Instead contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements through direct funding or even bartering."
I love that we're encouraging bartering. 😉 I'm a little uncomfortable saying that the main fund doesn't respond to user needs, because while they don't realize it, things like paying for the trademark does provide value to users. Just no one asks for that. What would you think about: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is used for infrastructure and general project needs instead of feature requests or specific user concerns. Contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements that are desired through direct funding or even bartering." I feel like that says what it does do more than what it doesn't. Thoughts? (I don't love the word "desired" but I can't find a better one)
Patrick also reviewed it from the vectors channel on rocket chat, he had a lot more issues, but suggested making sure people could be removed for violations to the code of conduct. I've added the section to the bottom: """ # Can people be removed from being listed? The list is meant as a sort of business index of people providing services. But if contributors violate Inkscape community code of conduct they may be removed from this listing in the same way that they would be removed from other parts of the website. """ He suggested more, an issue with making sure people are actually active in the community. But I couldn't make anything line up with what you were saying ted about keeping things open and not being seen to be arbiters or guarantors. Any ideas that might suffice?
Good points. For inactive contributors, I think we've got a plan for that generally as we have new plans on how to identify contributors. So we don't need another mechanism to do that. We haven't discussed anything with a CoC violation, but I think that someone should be removed from active contributor status if they violate it. I'm feeling like we should save this debate for when we flesh out exact wording there, but I'm all for a mechanism to remove "active contributor" status for those who violate the CoC (lots of details to work out). But I'm feeling like where we're going with "active contributor" deals with Patrick's concerns on the list as to be on the list you'd have to be an active contributor. Ted
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 11:45 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
I love that we're encouraging bartering. 😉
I'm a little uncomfortable saying that the main fund doesn't respond to user needs, because while they don't realize it, things like paying for the trademark does provide value to users. Just no one asks for that. What would you think about:
"Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is used for infrastructure and general project needs instead of feature requests or specific user concerns. Contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements that are desired through direct funding or even bartering."
I feel like that says what it does do more than what it doesn't. Thoughts? (I don't love the word "desired" but I can't find a better one)
To replace the whole paragraph, I could just say:
"""Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is used for infrastructure and general project needs instead of feature requests or specific user concerns. Contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements that are desired through: collective funding, contracting or even bartering. This page lists the people who offer these kinds of services."""
Good points. For inactive contributors, I think we've got a plan for that generally as we have new plans on how to identify contributors. So we don't need another mechanism to do that. We haven't discussed anything with a CoC violation, but I think that someone should be removed from active contributor status if they violate it. I'm feeling like we should save this debate for when we flesh out exact wording there, but I'm all for a mechanism to remove "active contributor" status for those who violate the CoC (lots of details to work out). But I'm feeling like where we're going with "active contributor" deals with Patrick's concerns on the list as to be on the list you'd have to be an active contributor.
That's a good point. We can organise that as part of our other organisational protocol.
I've refactored that last paragraph to be more generic:
""" # Who can be added or removed from this list?
The list is meant as a sort of business index of people providing services. Active contributors can be added to the list and if contributors stop being active contributors to the project, then they may be removed from the list. Please contact us if you wish to be listed or believe someone is no longer active to keep this list clean. """
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Apr 15 2021, at 12:14 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 10:29 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
My understanding is that we can list folks that have external funding modes, we just have to be careful to ensure that we don't guarantee inclusion of work or that any work will be done at all for their money. (or that their input would be considered on a Patreon) They are giving their money to the person they're working with and the only relationship they have is between themselves and that person/company. By being on the list the Inkscape project isn't guaranteeing they won't be scammed.
I've added a new section based on Maren's response. It's a little more "the modifications may not end up in Inkscape" and less "you could be scammed" but both thoughts are important.
I've added your points here and expanded it with a contact us link and by adding a list of contributors looking for user funding. I've added Tav and Marc's patreons as a sample (I haven't asked them) so take this as a sample so far. This can all be controlled via the admin interface.
What I think we can't do is imply we've vetted the list in any way other than "they are active contributors." So I think we need to drop the text:
we try and keep this list clean of people with bad reputations.
and
If you have had a bad experience: please contact the project (https://inkscape.org/contact/us/).
We don't have the means to determine who is at fault or whether they were in violation of a contract (assuming one was signed) or anything like that. I don't want to use the word "scammed" as that's not what we want to suggest. But I think that we probably need to have: "It is your responsibility vet the individuals on this list and to ensure that funding these people will achieve the goals you have set for those funds." Then I would change this "This is a random list of people who have put themselves forwards as people who are contributing to Inkscape funded by users:" to something like "This is a list of Inkscape contributors who have requested their funding platforms to be listed here. If you're a contributor and would like to be listed please XYZ." That way it isn't us judging them in anyway, it is just them requesting to be listed and us honoring that request.
I think that any contributor to Inkscape should be able to be listed there (with the disclaimer above) with perhaps a couple links. We should perhaps create a sponsorship type that would be for consultancies that would allow them to be listed. I think we could start with a fixed amount, but if it grew it might be interesting to do a five percent model or something like that.
We have a sponsorship level which is for companies that let their employees work on Inkscape. Marc's employer is in this category. But I think you mean, for people who do this kind of work to push some of the money back into Inkscape's charity fund (i.e. to the SFC) right?
I was more thinking of the case if a software consultancy, like let's say Igalia or Collabora, wanted to add Inkscape to the list of things they'd take a contract on they could be listed. Which would make sense for folks wanting to fund a larger project that'd take several developers and/or project management, etc. So then, if let's say they took a $200K contract they'd contribute $10K of that to Inkscape's general fund. But, generally, I don't want this conversation to derail the work above. I think it might be a place for us to expand as we don't have anyone asking for it right now (buyer or seller). Ted
Round 2,
Thanks Ted,
All your changes are in. I've emboldened the section about "It is your responsibility..." I think your changes make this feel better to me. More straightforward.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 15:00 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
What I think we can't do is imply we've vetted the list in any way other than "they are active contributors." So I think we need to drop the text:
we try and keep this list clean of people with bad reputations.
and
If you have had a bad experience: please contact the project.
We don't have the means to determine who is at fault or whether they were in violation of a contract (assuming one was signed) or anything like that. I don't want to use the word "scammed" as that's not what we want to suggest. But I think that we probably need to have: "It is your responsibility vet the individuals on this list and to ensure that funding these people will achieve the goals you have set for those funds."
Then I would change this "This is a random list of people who have put themselves forwards as people who are contributing to Inkscape funded by users:" to something like "This is a list of Inkscape contributors who have requested their funding platforms to be listed here. If you're a contributor and would like to be listed please XYZ." That way it isn't us judging them in anyway, it is just them requesting to be listed and us honoring that request.
Cool, I like the advice you put in on how to look and evaluate the folks. I think that makes it feel more helpful and less demanding (which I was worried about but couldn't quite figure out how to fix).
We should ask Vectors to comment to ensure it isn't in "Developer English" and I would notify SFC about it but not block on them. I think we've avoided the big mistakes, so I'm not too worried we'd risk their tax status or anything. We'll probably also eventually need a policy on the ordering of the list of people. Don't have strong feelings on what it should be (is it easy to rotate regularly?) but I imagine as we grow it will become an issue. I don't want people to feel we're favoring the board/friends/enemies/The British/etc. Ted On Apr 15 2021, at 5:05 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Round 2,
Thanks Ted, All your changes are in. I've emboldened the section about "It is your responsibility..." I think your changes make this feel better to me. More straightforward.
Best Regards, Martin Owens On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 15:00 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
What I think we can't do is imply we've vetted the list in any way other than "they are active contributors." So I think we need to drop the text:
we try and keep this list clean of people with bad reputations.
and
If you have had a bad experience: please contact the project.
We don't have the means to determine who is at fault or whether they were in violation of a contract (assuming one was signed) or anything like that. I don't want to use the word "scammed" as that's not what we want to suggest. But I think that we probably need to have: "It is your responsibility vet the individuals on this list and to ensure that funding these people will achieve the goals you have set for those funds."
Then I would change this "This is a random list of people who have put themselves forwards as people who are contributing to Inkscape funded by users:" to something like "This is a list of Inkscape contributors who have requested their funding platforms to be listed here. If you're a contributor and would like to be listed please XYZ." That way it isn't us judging them in anyway, it is just them requesting to be listed and us honoring that request.
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Thanks Ted,
I'll send out a request to vectors now and then SFC after that review.
On Fri, 2021-04-16 at 12:36 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
We'll probably also eventually need a policy on the ordering of the list of people. Don't have strong feelings on what it should be (is it easy to rotate regularly?) but I imagine as we grow it will become an issue. I don't want people to feel we're favoring the board/friends/enemies/The British/etc.
When I added the people list plugin, I modified the website code to randomise the order in that plugin, every time you refresh it'll be in a new order. When not logged in, it's random every few days/depending on which thread you hit because of the cache.
Tav and Marc, are you ok with this page, since I've added your names to it and will be sending the page to the SFC?
Best Regards, Martin Owens
participants (3)
-
C R -
Martin Owens -
Ted Gould