Joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
Hi all,
Inkscape's been growing by leaps and bounds this last year, thanks to all the efforts of its community. Part of the growth process requires formalizing certain things - such as how we handle Inkscape's finances.
Up to now, I've handled Inkscape's finances as part of my own. However, with the income we'll be getting from Google, and the increasing amount of donations we've been receiving, now is a good time to set Inkscape up with a more formal way to manage its money.
The Inkscape admins have considered a number of options. The one we like best is to join the Software Freedom Conservancy (http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/). For the past few months I've been working with the SFC, and just recently learned we've been accepted! Here's more info:
http://inkscape.org/conservancy/
However, before this becomes official, there are three things I think we need to do: First is to give the community the opportunity to voice any questions or concerns before anything gets set. Second, we need to review the agreement that the SFC requires us to sign. Third, we need to select a set of official representatives who will sign the Agreement papers that cause Inkscape to become part of the SFC.
As part of this, we need to decide how official (monetary) decisions will be made by Inkscape. This is required by the SFC mainly so there is a defined way for determining how funds will be spent. Do we require a full concensus of the Inkscape representatives? A simple majority? Or is the word of any one representatives enough? My own feeling is that a simple majority (3 out of 4 reps) is enough.
We also will need to have a defined procedure for adding/removing representatives.
Please review http://inkscape.org/conservancy/ and give some thought as to how we should organize Inkscape, and share your thoughts in this thread.
Thanks, Bryce
As part of this, we need to decide how official (monetary) decisions will be made by Inkscape. This is required by the SFC mainly so there is a defined way for determining how funds will be spent. Do we require a full concensus of the Inkscape representatives? A simple majority? Or is the word of any one representatives enough? My own feeling is that a simple majority (3 out of 4 reps) is enough.
Agree.
We also will need to have a defined procedure for adding/removing representatives.
Keep in mind this must be a procedure that even works in the improbable case of all current representatives being hit by vehicles.
ralf
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 10:40:55AM +0200, Ralf Stephan wrote:
We also will need to have a defined procedure for adding/removing representatives.
Keep in mind this must be a procedure that even works in the improbable case of all current representatives being hit by vehicles.
Does anyone have a suggestion about what the procedure should be? Are there any other projects similar to us that we could model?
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Does anyone have a suggestion about what the procedure should be? Are there any other projects similar to us that we could model?
Sure, you could look at Debian, java community panel, etc - ask for volunteers, then hold a quick election poll. Or simply ask key developers to serve for a year such as you do with release managers. A suggestion would be to have an odd number so there are no ties.
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 00:37 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Inkscape's been growing by leaps and bounds this last year, thanks to all the efforts of its community. Part of the growth process requires formalizing certain things - such as how we handle Inkscape's finances.
I agree, I think this is an important step.
However, before this becomes official, there are three things I think we need to do: First is to give the community the opportunity to voice any questions or concerns before anything gets set. Second, we need to review the agreement that the SFC requires us to sign. Third, we need to select a set of official representatives who will sign the Agreement papers that cause Inkscape to become part of the SFC.
As part of this, we need to decide how official (monetary) decisions will be made by Inkscape. This is required by the SFC mainly so there is a defined way for determining how funds will be spent. Do we require a full concensus of the Inkscape representatives? A simple majority? Or is the word of any one representatives enough? My own feeling is that a simple majority (3 out of 4 reps) is enough.
We also will need to have a defined procedure for adding/removing representatives.
Okay, if no one else is going to be a lightening rod :)
I think the only reasonable 'group' that we could define as having any authority would be the four people listed as founders. Now, I'm not saying that they (particularly me) have made better contributions than other folks on this list, but I'm looking for something that is agreeable.
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be
added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
Thoughts?
--Ted
Ted Gould wrote:
I think the only reasonable 'group' that we could define as having any authority would be the four people listed as founders. Now, I'm not saying that they (particularly me) have made better contributions than other folks on this list, but I'm looking for something that is agreeable.
This or the people listed as admins of the sourceforge.net project. Or better, combine the two groups to get an odd number of members.
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
What if the sky is falling over the city where the next Libre Graphics Meeting is taking place and all members of the board are present, how the new board would be elected? I think is better to have a larger group voting for adding a new member.
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:01 +0300, Nicu Buculei (OCAL) wrote:
Ted Gould wrote:
I think the only reasonable 'group' that we could define as having any authority would be the four people listed as founders. Now, I'm not saying that they (particularly me) have made better contributions than other folks on this list, but I'm looking for something that is agreeable.
This or the people listed as admins of the sourceforge.net project. Or better, combine the two groups to get an odd number of members.
That's fine with me. I imagine the lists would merge very quickly through the membership addition process either way :)
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
What if the sky is falling over the city where the next Libre Graphics Meeting is taking place and all members of the board are present, how the new board would be elected?
It's obvious we'll need a process where in one member of the board doesn't attend the conference. The board could never been in the same physical location at the same time :)
I think is better to have a larger group voting for adding a new member.
The problem there is determining who is in that larger group. Groups like the GNOME Foundation have people doing a lot of work to manage membership. While I love the inclusiveness of the GNOME Foundation, I don't think we're ready for that level of bureaucracy.
--Ted
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:09:41PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:01 +0300, Nicu Buculei (OCAL) wrote:
Ted Gould wrote:
I think the only reasonable 'group' that we could define as having any authority would be the four people listed as founders. Now, I'm not saying that they (particularly me) have made better contributions than other folks on this list, but I'm looking for something that is agreeable.
This or the people listed as admins of the sourceforge.net project. Or better, combine the two groups to get an odd number of members.
That's fine with me. I imagine the lists would merge very quickly through the membership addition process either way :)
Sounds like a good starting point to me as well.
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
I think is better to have a larger group voting for adding a new member.
The problem there is determining who is in that larger group. Groups like the GNOME Foundation have people doing a lot of work to manage membership. While I love the inclusiveness of the GNOME Foundation, I don't think we're ready for that level of bureaucracy.
Whatever approach is taken, I agree that minimizing bureaucracy is an important goal. We should keep it easy and simple.
I also like the idea of enforced term limits (1 year?) Like, multiple terms are okay, but no one can serve two terms in a row.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:09:41PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
Ted Gould wrote:
I think the only reasonable 'group' that we could define as having any authority would be the four people listed as founders.
Whatever approach is taken, I agree that minimizing bureaucracy is an important goal. We should keep it easy and simple.
Simple is good.
I also like the idea of enforced term limits (1 year?) Like, multiple terms are okay, but no one can serve two terms in a row.
This would be for the additional board members, not just the founders, correct? I think that you guys should have the option to opt out, but, you guys have been running the show quite nicely for a few years now (and if it ain't broke...) :)
-Josh
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
This would be for the additional board members, not just the founders, correct? I think that you guys should have the option to opt out, but, you guys have been running the show quite nicely for a few years now (and if it ain't broke...) :)
I do want to mention here that it not only the founders who have been running the show, far from it. There are several people, most notably Bulia, who have been doing atleast as much, if not more, for the project.
--Ted
Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
This would be for the additional board members, not just the founders, correct? I think that you guys should have the option to opt out, but, you guys have been running the show quite nicely for a few years now (and if it ain't broke...) :)
I do want to mention here that it not only the founders who have been running the show, far from it. There are several people, most notably Bulia, who have been doing atleast as much, if not more, for the project.
Agreed... I keep forgetting that Bulia wasn't one of the founders, so that's why I worded it like that. I should have been more inclusive with the Project Administrators too. :)
-Josh
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I also like the idea of enforced term limits (1 year?) Like, multiple terms are okay, but no one can serve two terms in a row.
I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. If we had a larger electoriate, I'd be for it. But if it is the board 'self-electing', I'm not sure that term limits would just be a formality more than of any practical use. It would be just as easy to vote them off as to vote for them to have another term.
It's kinda like congress not voting to not give them self a cost of living increase versus just voting for a pay raise.
--Ted
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:41:23PM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I also like the idea of enforced term limits (1 year?) Like, multiple terms are okay, but no one can serve two terms in a row.
I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. If we had a larger electoriate, I'd be for it. But if it is the board 'self-electing', I'm not sure that term limits would just be a formality more than of any practical use. It would be just as easy to vote them off as to vote for them to have another term.
It's kinda like congress not voting to not give them self a cost of living increase versus just voting for a pay raise.
Okay, well the main thing is it would be nice to have some automatic means of injecting fresh blood into the board from year to year. Also, if there's some polite way to remove inactive board members (voting them off seems like it could be impolite and messy), that may help make room for new people.
Bryce
On Jul 11, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Okay, well the main thing is it would be nice to have some automatic means of injecting fresh blood into the board from year to year. Also, if there's some polite way to remove inactive board members (voting them off seems like it could be impolite and messy), that may help make room for new people.
One factor would be to balance things with stability and orderly transition. Staggered terms would be one way to work with terms.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:09:41PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
One other important question - will the board members need to be publically known? I.e., will we need to have a requirement that they publish their RL names?
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
One other important question - will the board members need to be publically known? I.e., will we need to have a requirement that they publish their RL names?
I think the Inkscape community could do just fine without knowing the RL names, but you should check with Software Freedom Conservancy for their point of view.
Bryce Harrington wrote:
One other important question - will the board members need to be publically known? I.e., will we need to have a requirement that they publish their RL names?
That's a great Q considering we have a couple founders who prefer to not use their RL names... perhaps the only "publishing" would be within the board and not fully public?
-Josh
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:09:41PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
One other important question - will the board members need to be publically known? I.e., will we need to have a requirement that they publish their RL names?
Bryce
RL names is a requirement only if they have to sign legal paperwork for the Inkscape project (as representatives). Inkscape, after all, has been run well with some people not using them, so I don't think that a 'RL names policy' needs to be adopted.
- Spyros Blanas
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:05:10PM +0300, Spyros Blanas wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:09:41PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
One other important question - will the board members need to be publically known? I.e., will we need to have a requirement that they publish their RL names?
Bryce
RL names is a requirement only if they have to sign legal paperwork for the Inkscape project (as representatives).
Yes, the representitives do have to sign legal paperwork for the Inkscape project.
Bryce
Thanks everyone that provided feedback on the SFC and how to select representatives.
It sounds like we've decided to refer to these guys as "The Inkscape Board", and that the Board should initially be made up of the founders and project admins (Mental, nathan, ted, bulia, and myself.) I'd like to add two more slots to bring it to a lucky 7. The one catch though is that since by definition we will be 'signatories', I think that means that our names must be public; if mental and bulia wish to remain under pseudonyms, perhaps they can select someone to take their place?
There were several different ideas for how to select board members, and I'm not totally sure what the best approach is. Below is a generic version sort of pieced together from different people's suggestions, just to give us something to throw darts at.
1. The Inkscape Board consists of seven representatives. 2. A majority vote of the Inkscape Board is sufficient to communicate decisions to the Conservancy. 3. Any representative can be removed by a simple majority vote of the Board. Representatives may also remove themselves from the board at will. 4. When a Board position is vacant, nominations for a new representative are taken, and then a vote is held. 5. The nomination period and procedure must be announced at least 3 days prior to the close of nominations. Any member of the Inkscape community with commit rights to the Inkscape codebase is eligible to be nominated, and may nominate themselves. 6. Representatives must be legally able to sign the Software Freedom Conservancy Agreement and willing to have their real name publically known. 7. The voting period and procedure must be announced at least 3 days prior to the voting deadline, and begins when the candidates are announced. Any member of the Inkscape community with commit rights to the Inkscape codebase is eligible to vote. The nominee with the majority of the votes cast by the deadline immediately becomes a representative on the Inkscape Board. 8. Any of the above terms may be changed by a vote of the Inkscape Board.
How does the above sound? A couple options that were tossed around earlier, for consideration:
* Dispense with the public voting and just let the board select replacements themselves. Simplifies the process, but could risk getting a bit insular...
* Put all of (or half of) the members up for election each year. Perhaps on Inkscape's founding date (10/23)
Let me know what you think.
Bryce
On 7/14/06, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
that our names must be public; if mental and bulia wish to remain under pseudonyms, perhaps they can select someone to take their place?
If someone wants to take my place, I won't object.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 11:45:15PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 02:11 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Let me know what you think.
Sure. I like verbalshadow's comments, so I second those. Otherwise, let's be done! :)
Okay, sounds good. Could you remind me of what those comments were? I'll wrap up the representation proposal and send it to the conservancy, and get things in motion.
Bryce
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 23:45 -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 02:11 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Let me know what you think.
Sure. I like verbalshadow's comments, so I second those. Otherwise, let's be done! :)
--Ted
Agree as well...this is all sounds good...
Jon
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=D... _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
participants (10)
-
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak -
Jon A. Cruz -
Jon Phillips -
Joshua A. Andler -
jtaber -
Nicu Buculei (OCAL) -
Ralf Stephan -
Spyros Blanas -
Ted Gould