On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 16:01 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

Thus, I'd like to discuss with you about what the objections are in detail. Is Inkscape in some way unhappy with Conservancy's services?

I'll throw in my opinion, and I'm guessing that of others. We do think that the Conservancy's work is valuable and has definitely been helpful in maintaining Inkscape. I don't know of any issues that we have. I think the resistance here is natural from the "we didn't think about paying for it" perspective. It's always to go from something you got for free to something you're paying for, it immediately creates the reaction of "how much is this worth?" which people haven't thought about.

Personally, I think that 10% is reasonable considering all the Conservancy does do. I'm not sure that we "use" $600/year worth of services, but I do think that's a reasonable way for the Conservancy to charge member projects (fair to all), and if we were more active on the business front (our fault, not yours) we definitely would. I also like the flat percentage than trying to figure out a more complex scheme.

So in general, I don't feel their is objection per se, as much as we haven't thought about the Conservancy as something we've had to pay for. I don't think it's unreasonable that we would, but we need to change our perceptions.

--Ted