[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
1. In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
2. Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200. [ ] e. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.
In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212
For comparison, Software in the Public Interest (SPI), an organization analogous to the SFC, provides similar services and takes 5% of net (after credit card, etc. fees):
I vote Yes and C, but I want to propose that we donate the money in installments.
My thought is 3 separate $1,200 donations separated by 6 months each. My main reasoning is to ensure there is a balance between income and expenditures since we already have a good amount of money budgeted to be spent this year, we don't really know how the fundraising is going and can't ask Bradley for more frequent updates, and we won't have any income from Google from SoC this year.
I am still not fond that the fsa includes the donation language, because it seems as if they don't trust us. It will be a donation (or donations), and us pledging should be good enough for them.
Cheers, Josh
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200. [ ] e. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212For comparison, Software in the Public Interest (SPI), an organization analogous to the SFC, provides similar services and takes 5% of net (after credit card, etc. fees):
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:04:53PM -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
I vote Yes and C, but I want to propose that we donate the money in installments.
My thought is 3 separate $1,200 donations separated by 6 months each. My main reasoning is to ensure there is a balance between income and expenditures since we already have a good amount of money budgeted to be spent this year, we don't really know how the fundraising is going and can't ask Bradley for more frequent updates, and we won't have any income from Google from SoC this year.
Actually, Bradley has resumed more frequent updates lately.
Here's where we're at currently:
Total Donations FY2012 12-Mar-02 - 13-Feb-28 Inc:Inkscape:Donations $6,389.29 $6,389.29 FY2013 13-Mar-05 - 14-Feb-28 Inc:Inkscape:Donations $7,637.61 $7,637.61 FY2014 14-Mar-03 - 15-Feb-28 Inc:Inkscape:Donations $13,066.98 $13,066.98 FY2015 15-Mar-01 - 15-Mar-16 Inc:Inkscape:Donations $2,778.88 $2,778.88
Hackfest FY2014 14-Dec-05 - 15-Feb-28 Assets:PayPal $6,153.39 $6,153.39 FY2015 15-Mar-01 - 15-Mar-16 Assets:PayPal $2,275.68 $2,275.68
The general fund has an income of around $6-7k per year, or an income rate of about $500/month. I had been concerned previously that the hackfest would steal all our donors and starve the general fund, but you can see even though people are definitely favoring to donate to the hackfest, we're still getting general fund donations (just for first half of March we're already at $2778 - $2275 = $503).
And with $8k received so far for the hackfest, it is looking a lot more likely that we'll be able to cover most of the expenses directly, and maybe end up cash positive.
I am still not fond that the fsa includes the donation language, because it seems as if they don't trust us. It will be a donation (or donations), and us pledging should be good enough for them.
True; it seems odd to specify a donation in the FSA itself. Certainly, I could see it included in the FSA text if it's considered a required membership fee we must pay. If it truly is up to us to optionally choose whether or not to donate and/or how much, then you could argue maybe it would be better handled as an independent matter?
Bryce
Cheers, Josh
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200. [ ] e. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212For comparison, Software in the Public Interest (SPI), an organization analogous to the SFC, provides similar services and takes 5% of net (after credit card, etc. fees):
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
The general fund has an income of around $6-7k per year, or an income rate of about $500/month. I had been concerned previously that the hackfest would steal all our donors and starve the general fund, but you can see even though people are definitely favoring to donate to the hackfest, we're still getting general fund donations (just for first half of March we're already at $2778 - $2275 = $503).
Okay, this puts my concerns to rest then. May as well donate it in a single shot. Yay on the numbers btw!!! Do we have more info, such as who the donors were? I'd like to give them shout outs as we go and maybe get some corporate logos up on our website.
True; it seems odd to specify a donation in the FSA itself. Certainly, I could see it included in the FSA text if it's considered a required membership fee we must pay. If it truly is up to us to optionally choose whether or not to donate and/or how much, then you could argue maybe it would be better handled as an independent matter?
This is why it doesn't feel right to me. If it's a requirement, I would appreciate them being up front about that. If it's not, it's doesn't seem appropriate to me and comes across that they either don't trust us or it's an unspoken requirement.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 05:50:00PM -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
The general fund has an income of around $6-7k per year, or an income rate of about $500/month. I had been concerned previously that the hackfest would steal all our donors and starve the general fund, but you can see even though people are definitely favoring to donate to the hackfest, we're still getting general fund donations (just for first half of March we're already at $2778 - $2275 = $503).
Okay, this puts my concerns to rest then. May as well donate it in a single shot. Yay on the numbers btw!!! Do we have more info, such as who the donors were? I'd like to give them shout outs as we go and maybe get some corporate logos up on our website.
We certainly do. A typical entry in ledger has this data:
2015-03-10 ComputerBase GmbH ;Program: Inkscape:Conferences:Hackfest:2015 Assets:PayPal $144.90 ;PayPalTransactionId: 0UM8989276211204D Income:Inkscape:Donations $-150.00 ;IncomeType: Donations ;Memo: Thank you for developing Inkscape! Expenses:Inkscape:Banking Fees $5.10 ;Entity: PayPal
There are no email addresses or other contact information.
I think we shouldn't publish names, out of privacy concern. The Memo field is probably fair game; biz names probably, too. No clue whether displaying the donation amount is good or bad or what.
Here's a list of business donors:
2015-01-17 Association LILA ;Memo: This is a donation for Inkscape by the non-profit association LILA resulting from the "Libre Calendar 2015" event: http://librecal2015.libreart.info/en/ 2015-02-01 Powerhouse Electronics 2015-01-31 govirtual.com.au 2015-02-12 kiswa.com 2015-02-13 JGS Technical LLC 2015-02-12 elementary ;Memo: Your friends at elementary use Inkscape a ton for our design workflow. Hopefully this donation help s you all get together to make Inkscape even better. 2015-02-12 WP Consulting 2015-02-12 Confidence, LC 2015-02-15 HICK Tech 2015-02-16 Sinestesia Studio 2015-02-19 Birdie 30 Disc Golf & Pro Shop 2015-03-03 Tipoqueno 2015-03-03 Tamara T Pty Ltd 2015-03-02 Ecología Facil & Yorokobi 2015-03-06 Nedia Marketing 2015-03-10 ComputerBase GmbH ;Memo: Thank you for developing Inkscape! 2015-03-12 Branco Engineering Bureau Associazione Professionale 2015-03-14 Bama-Labs
A few of those I'm not sure if it's a business or just a person's pseudonym.
Lemme know if you want the dollar amounts (most were in the $20 range); I can send that offlist.
True; it seems odd to specify a donation in the FSA itself. Certainly, I could see it included in the FSA text if it's considered a required membership fee we must pay. If it truly is up to us to optionally choose whether or not to donate and/or how much, then you could argue maybe it would be better handled as an independent matter?
This is why it doesn't feel right to me. If it's a requirement, I would appreciate them being up front about that. If it's not, it's doesn't seem appropriate to me and comes across that they either don't trust us or it's an unspoken requirement.
*Nod*
Bryce
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 17:50 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Bryce Harrington
True; it seems odd to specify a donation in the FSA itself. Certainly, I could see it included in the FSA text if it's considered a required membership fee we must pay. If it truly is up to us to optionally choose whether or not to donate and/or how much, then you could argue maybe it would be better handled as an independent matter?
This is why it doesn't feel right to me. If it's a requirement, I would appreciate them being up front about that. If it's not, it's doesn't seem appropriate to me and comes across that they either don't trust us or it's an unspoken requirement.
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%. I think that it is basically a requirement for organizations joining the Conservatory today, and that they're trying to work with existing projects to move all of them over to the same system. It keeps their accounting simple and consistent and I don't think it's an unreasonable amount for them to charge. I do agree with the idea of it being retroactive is a bad thing, but I don't have any issue about it going into the future.
Ted
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:46:24AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I'm not sure what to do here. They've provided an updated FSA and want to move forward with getting it signed, however it isn't honoring our request to leave out mention of the retroactive donation.
The amounts listed are what we voted for, so it's numerically correct, but not technically correct on the third point...
I know this Committee felt strongly about this point previously, so I don't want to just brush it off. Should I: a) bring it up with them, b) don't worry about it and just proceed, c) send back an amended copy of the FSA that drops that bit, d) something else...?
(I'm amending the copy anyway to tinker with some of the representation language, so am going to default to (c) if no one has better advice.)
Bryce
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
At this point I would say C is my preference.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:46:24AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I'm not sure what to do here. They've provided an updated FSA and want to move forward with getting it signed, however it isn't honoring our request to leave out mention of the retroactive donation.
The amounts listed are what we voted for, so it's numerically correct, but not technically correct on the third point...
I know this Committee felt strongly about this point previously, so I don't want to just brush it off. Should I: a) bring it up with them, b) don't worry about it and just proceed, c) send back an amended copy of the FSA that drops that bit, d) something else...?
(I'm amending the copy anyway to tinker with some of the representation language, so am going to default to (c) if no one has better advice.)
Bryce
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:47:23PM -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
At this point I would say C is my preference.
Thanks, I've forwarded it along to Tony.
I would encourage everyone to do one final review of the document (I posted it in this thread in reply to Tav the other day). We'll need to formally sign the document soon, and if anyone has any other concerns with any language I'd like to get that dealt with before we get to the signing stage.
Once you've reviewed the copy I sent, if you have no further concerns, I would appreciate if you would give me an informal thumbs-up.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:46:24AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I'm not sure what to do here. They've provided an updated FSA and want to move forward with getting it signed, however it isn't honoring our request to leave out mention of the retroactive donation.
The amounts listed are what we voted for, so it's numerically correct, but not technically correct on the third point...
I know this Committee felt strongly about this point previously, so I don't want to just brush it off. Should I: a) bring it up with them, b) don't worry about it and just proceed, c) send back an amended copy of the FSA that drops that bit, d) something else...?
(I'm amending the copy anyway to tinker with some of the representation language, so am going to default to (c) if no one has better advice.)
Bryce
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 15:30 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I would encourage everyone to do one final review of the document (I posted it in this thread in reply to Tav the other day). We'll need to formally sign the document soon, and if anyone has any other concerns with any language I'd like to get that dealt with before we get to the signing stage.
Once you've reviewed the copy I sent, if you have no further concerns, I would appreciate if you would give me an informal thumbs-up.
You made the one change I was concerned about (the mandatory elections every two years).
There is talk of a maximum and of a minimum number and that there must be an election within a year of falling below the maximum number but it doesn't explicitly state that the election should be to restore the board to seven members. (The use of 'vacant seat' hints at this but it could be more clearly stated.)
Why did you change "All" to "Routine" in section six? What other kinds of decisions are there?
Other than this it looks good to me.
Thanks, Bryce, for pushing on this.
Tav
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 09:27:41PM +0200, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 15:30 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I would encourage everyone to do one final review of the document (I posted it in this thread in reply to Tav the other day). We'll need to formally sign the document soon, and if anyone has any other concerns with any language I'd like to get that dealt with before we get to the signing stage.
Once you've reviewed the copy I sent, if you have no further concerns, I would appreciate if you would give me an informal thumbs-up.
You made the one change I was concerned about (the mandatory elections every two years).
There is talk of a maximum and of a minimum number and that there must be an election within a year of falling below the maximum number but it doesn't explicitly state that the election should be to restore the board to seven members. (The use of 'vacant seat' hints at this but it could be more clearly stated.)
Ah good point, I figured that was the implication there.
Although, here's a thought experiment. The board drops from 7 to 6. Nearly a year later we finally get around to holding an election, with the vote scheduled for the anniversary of the member's departure. But the day before the voting starts another board member drops out, bringing us to 5. The election is held, but since it was set up to only vote on one person, at the end of the election we're still only at 6, and now we're past the one year mark.
Why did you change "All" to "Routine" in section six? What other kinds of decisions are there?
There's a clause I added further down that requires a consensus decision by the committee, for disolving the committee.
There could be other decisions where we'd want to make consensus or 2/3rds votes be required; I don't think the FSA needs to limit us to only majority voting.
Other than this it looks good to me.
Thanks, Bryce, for pushing on this.
Tav
Bryce
I would support your option (c). BTW, can you send around your modified version?
Tav
On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 23:38 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:46:24AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I'm not sure what to do here. They've provided an updated FSA and want to move forward with getting it signed, however it isn't honoring our request to leave out mention of the retroactive donation.
The amounts listed are what we voted for, so it's numerically correct, but not technically correct on the third point...
I know this Committee felt strongly about this point previously, so I don't want to just brush it off. Should I: a) bring it up with them, b) don't worry about it and just proceed, c) send back an amended copy of the FSA that drops that bit, d) something else...?
(I'm amending the copy anyway to tinker with some of the representation language, so am going to default to (c) if no one has better advice.)
Bryce
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
Sure, here it is.
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:46:25PM +0200, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
I would support your option (c). BTW, can you send around your modified version?
Tav
On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 23:38 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:46:24AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I'm not sure what to do here. They've provided an updated FSA and want to move forward with getting it signed, however it isn't honoring our request to leave out mention of the retroactive donation.
The amounts listed are what we voted for, so it's numerically correct, but not technically correct on the third point...
I know this Committee felt strongly about this point previously, so I don't want to just brush it off. Should I: a) bring it up with them, b) don't worry about it and just proceed, c) send back an amended copy of the FSA that drops that bit, d) something else...?
(I'm amending the copy anyway to tinker with some of the representation language, so am going to default to (c) if no one has better advice.)
Bryce
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
1. Yes 2. e, flat amount of $400/yr for 2009-2012, 10% from 2012 onward.
Ted
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 15:03 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200. [ ] e. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212For comparison, Software in the Public Interest (SPI), an organization analogous to the SFC, provides similar services and takes 5% of net (after credit card, etc. fees):
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
1. Yes 2. c or e, flat amount of $400/yr for 2009-2012, 10% from 2012 onward.
I agree that the donation should not be mentioned in the FSA
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 15:03 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200. [ ] e. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212For comparison, Software in the Public Interest (SPI), an organization analogous to the SFC, provides similar services and takes 5% of net (after credit card, etc. fees):
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Below is current status on the vote (we're not quite there, but pretty close), and some slight modifications to our referendum to account for voter write-ins.
An issue was raised whether the retroactive donation needs to be referenced in the FSA at all or not, and there appears to be a preference for the write-in option on question 2 so I've made the popular write-in text it's own option.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200.
[ ] e. A flat amount of $400/yr for 2009-2012 ($1600), and 10% from 2012 onward (~ $2335). This amounts to approxmately $3935. [ ] f. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
3. Should mention of the retroactive donation be made in the FSA?
[ ] Yes [ ] No, only mention the 10% fee going forward in the FSA.
I'll cast my own votes at this time:
1: Y, 2: c|e, 3: N
With those alterations, the vote tally currently is:
Votes: 1. 2. 3. Bryce Harrington Y c|e N Tavmjong Bah Y c|e N Josh Andler Y c N Jon Cruz Ted Gould Y e <empty> <empty>
So, we agree on making a donation, but are tied as to how much to give. Jon could be the tie breaker. Or Josh or Ted could revise their votes to bring us to a decision.
I'd like to have voting wrapped on this by the end of the day tomorrow.
Bryce
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212For comparison, Software in the Public Interest (SPI), an organization analogous to the SFC, provides similar services and takes 5% of net (after credit card, etc. fees):
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:48 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Below is current status on the vote (we're not quite there, but pretty close), and some slight modifications to our referendum to account for voter write-ins.
An issue was raised whether the retroactive donation needs to be referenced in the FSA at all or not, and there appears to be a preference for the write-in option on question 2 so I've made the popular write-in text it's own option.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200.
[ ] e. A flat amount of $400/yr for 2009-2012 ($1600), and 10% from 2012 onward (~ $2335). This amounts to approxmately $3935. [ ] f. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Should mention of the retroactive donation be made in the FSA?
[ ] Yes [ ] No, only mention the 10% fee going forward in the FSA.
I'll cast my own votes at this time:
1: Y, 2: c|e, 3: N
I vote
1: Y
2: e
3: N
Votes: 1. 2. 3. Bryce Harrington Y e N Tavmjong Bah Y c|e N Josh Andler Y c N Jon Cruz Y e N Ted Gould Y e <empty> <empty>
Resolution:
1. Inkscape will make a donation to the Software Freedom Conservancy in recognition of past service to the project, in the amount of $400 per year since 2009 when we joined, through the end of 2012. This totals $1600. This amount will be paid immediately.
2. Further, while we are not technically required to start paying the new 10% fee until the new FSA takes effect, we will provide a donation of 10% of our net income from that point back retroactively to December 2012 when the FSA discussions initiated. This amount will be calculated and paid when the new FSA becomes official.
3. Neither of these donations shall be described or referenced in the text of the new FSA.
Bryce
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:48:16PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Below is current status on the vote (we're not quite there, but pretty close), and some slight modifications to our referendum to account for voter write-ins.
An issue was raised whether the retroactive donation needs to be referenced in the FSA at all or not, and there appears to be a preference for the write-in option on question 2 so I've made the popular write-in text it's own option.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200.
[ ] e. A flat amount of $400/yr for 2009-2012 ($1600), and 10% from 2012 onward (between $2000-2400). [ ] f. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Should mention of the retroactive donation be made in the FSA?
[ ] Yes [ ] No, only mention the 10% fee going forward in the FSA.
I'll cast my own votes at this time:
1: Y, 2: c|e, 3: NWith those alterations, the vote tally currently is:
Votes: 1. 2. 3. Bryce Harrington Y c|e N Tavmjong Bah Y c|e N Josh Andler Y c N Jon Cruz Ted Gould Y e <empty> <empty>
So, we agree on making a donation, but are tied as to how much to give. Jon could be the tie breaker. Or Josh or Ted could revise their votes to bring us to a decision.
I'd like to have voting wrapped on this by the end of the day tomorrow.
Bryce
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212
Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On 2015-03-21 04:42, Bryce Harrington wrote:
- Inkscape will make a donation to the Software Freedom Conservancy in
recognition of past service to the project, in the amount of $400 per year since 2009 when we joined, through the end of 2012. This totals $1600. This amount will be paid immediately.
Thank you! (And thanks for resolving this!!) One thing - Inkscape has actually been a member since 2006. Does that impact your decision?
karen
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:15:18AM -0400, Karen Sandler wrote:
On 2015-03-21 04:42, Bryce Harrington wrote:
- Inkscape will make a donation to the Software Freedom Conservancy in
recognition of past service to the project, in the amount of $400 per year since 2009 when we joined, through the end of 2012. This totals $1600. This amount will be paid immediately.
Thank you! (And thanks for resolving this!!) One thing - Inkscape has actually been a member since 2006. Does that impact your decision?
Sorry, I made an error in the write-up, I'll re-send with the correction.
Bryce
Votes: 1. 2. 3. Bryce Harrington Y e N Tavmjong Bah Y c|e N Josh Andler Y c N Jon Cruz Y e N Ted Gould Y e <empty> <empty>
Resolution:
1. Inkscape will make a donation of $400 per year to the Software Freedom Conservancy in recognition of service to the project for the period from 2009 to the end of 2012. This totals $1600. This amount will be paid immediately.
2. Further, while we are not technically required to start paying the new 10% fee until the new FSA takes effect, we will provide a donation of 10% of our net income from that point back retroactively to December 2012 when the FSA discussions initiated. This amount will be calculated and paid when the new FSA becomes official.
3. Neither of these donations shall be described or referenced in the text of the new FSA.
Bryce
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:48:16PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Below is current status on the vote (we're not quite there, but pretty close), and some slight modifications to our referendum to account for voter write-ins.
An issue was raised whether the retroactive donation needs to be referenced in the FSA at all or not, and there appears to be a preference for the write-in option on question 2 so I've made the popular write-in text it's own option.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
[Reposting]
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following proposal relating to retroactive payment to SFC.
Proposal:
In light of the services provided by the Software Freedom Consortium to date, given on voluntary basis, should we provide a retroactive donation to the SFC?
[ ] Yes, donate to SFC in thanks for their past support. [ ] No. We should pay only the required 10% fee going forward from date of signature of the new FSA.
Assuming we should donate to the SFC, how much should we donate to SFC?
[ ] a. 10% of gross income since we have been a member (9 years). [ ] b. 10% of gross income since initiation of FSA #2 discussions (2012). [ ] c. A flat amount of $400 per year that we have been a member (2009). This amounts to $3600. [ ] d. A flat amount of $400 per year since FSA #2 (2012). This amounts to $1200.
[ ] e. A flat amount of $400/yr for 2009-2012 ($1600), and 10% from 2012 onward (between $2000-2400). [ ] f. Some other amount: _________________________________________________________
Should mention of the retroactive donation be made in the FSA?
[ ] Yes [ ] No, only mention the 10% fee going forward in the FSA.
I'll cast my own votes at this time:
1: Y, 2: c|e, 3: NWith those alterations, the vote tally currently is:
Votes: 1. 2. 3. Bryce Harrington Y c|e N Tavmjong Bah Y c|e N Josh Andler Y c N Jon Cruz Ted Gould Y e <empty> <empty>
So, we agree on making a donation, but are tied as to how much to give. Jon could be the tie breaker. Or Josh or Ted could revise their votes to bring us to a decision.
I'd like to have voting wrapped on this by the end of the day tomorrow.
Bryce
Background:
Tav writes, "I agree with Josh and Ted that a donation to the SFC is appropriate for their past work on our behalf. Can we agree on the amount? I would propose $400 for each year we have been a member. We have been a member for 9 years so that would be $3600.
This assumes that the 10% kicks in on the date the new FSA is approved. "
We were asked by Bradley to provide 10% of our revenue to SFC in 2012:
(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.In December 2012, we voted generally favorable to paying the 10% fee going forward from 2012. There were questions regarding pass-thru of Google SOC payments and so on, but generally favored the basic idea:
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-board/?viewmonth=201212
Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
participants (6)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Jon A. Cruz -
Josh Andler -
Karen Sandler -
Tavmjong Bah -
Ted Gould