Re: Proposed resolution: Waive SPI 5% administrative fee for 2020 associated project conferences

I would charge 5% going forward, and make no changes (refunds or new charges) for what happened in the past.

Bdale

On June 13, 2020 11:09:52 AM MDT, Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Per other branch on this thread, Stephen outlined that the Board is
>working with the Debian Representative on clarifying the status of
>DebConf sponsorships, etc.
>
>Since I'm in favour of 'fairness' and 'consistency', I agree with Peter
>that some questions need answering:
>
>(1) Historically, were all projects charged 5% for donations (yes, is
>my
>understanding) and sponsorships (no, Debian wasn't, at least)?
>
>(2) Once the reality or perception* of miscommunication between SPI and
>Debain is
>clarified (who knew or should have known what when; yes, I think this
>is
>needed), should we:
>
> (a) refund Debian for the 2016-2019 sponsorship fees?
>
> (b) refund Debian and refund other projects have their sponsorship
> fees refunded (how far back)?
>
> (c) not refund Debian for 2016-2019 sponsorsip fees?
>
>(d) not refund Debian for 2016-2019 and apply the 5% on Debian
>sponsorships prior to 2016?
>
> The point being, how much historical consistency should we strive for.
>
>(3) Going forward, should we:
>
> (a) not charge a fee on sponsorships for a year while data is
> collected (2020 might not be a good year, given conference
> cancellations)? Again, across all projects' sponsorhips, not just
> Debian.
>
> OR
>
> (b) should we apply the 5% on all projects' sponsorships?
>
>This has to be tempered with practical realities: do we have the data
>necessary to make it clear which funds were donations vs sponsorships;
>is it worth the relationship friction with Debian or the other
>projects;
>etc.?
>
>At the moment, I'm at 2a & 3b so I'd prefer seeing the resolution draft
>altered to match. If more information is produced indicating recorded
>written communication between SPI and Debian in 2016/2017 regarding the
>fee change, then I'd go with 2c (or a partial refund up to the date of
>that written communication).
>
>Finally, I don't think the amount of potential refund is material. By
>this I mean: let's try to do the right thing**, regardless of the
>amount.
>
>Happy to hear your thoughts on my position,
>
>Luca
>
>* as more people recall their conversations, the picture changes; that
> said, I'm waiting to see a written communication from around 2016
>
>** up to the point that it makes SPI insolvent, which this won't
>
>On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:18:55PM +0100, Peter Cock wrote:
>> Hello Michael, Martin, all,
>>
>> I personally agree that inconsistently charging the 5% fee is
>unacceptable,
>> but
>> not with the proposed remedy. I would rather suggest explicitly
>granting
>> amnesty
>> on past omissions (assuming no technical objections such as from the
>> auditors),
>> and enforcing the 5% universally pending any future change in policy.
>>
>> Aside from DebConf 2016-2019, are any other SPI project conferences
>which
>> paid 5% fees on their conference income? If so, as Martin points out
>it
>> would be
>> unfair to only refund DebConf. If not, the proposal should be
>reworded.
>>
>> Other important questions: What is the approximate amount of missing
>5% SPI
>> fees potentially owed by DebConf (and other projects)? What is the
>> approximate
>> amount of collected 5% conference income SPI fees collected by
>DebConf (and
>> others) which might be refunded?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> (Speaking personally, and not as president and former treasurer for
>the Open
>> Bioinformatics Foundation, nor on behalf of any other SPI project.)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 7:21 AM Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
>wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Mon Jun 08, 2020 at 23:55:03 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>> > > Also DebConf can not say they do not know about the 5%, as it is
>> > > well-known and documented per SPIs Projects howto:
>> > >
>> > > | All transaction costs (such as the fees we are charged to
>process
>> > credit
>> > > | cards and wire transfers) are deducted from the contribution,
>to the
>> > > | extent we are able to identify and attribute these costs. 5%
>of the
>> > > | remainder is deducted for SPI overhead. The remaining money is
>held on
>> > > | behalf of the project.
>> > > (Source:
>https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/)
>> >
>> > Also our reports that we publish since 2016 contain this
>information:
>> >
>> > "Per project donations have a debit amount specified, which is the
>SPI
>> > 5% contribution from the project towards the SPI general fund. Thus
>> > total donation amount is net of this contribution."
>> >
>> > So if DebConf would had cared more about it, they should have seen
>this
>> > already back in 2016 or 2017.
>> >
>> > Best regards.
>> > Martin
>> > --
>> > Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
>> > Software in the Public Interest, Inc. | Member of the Board of
>Directors
>> > GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B
>627B
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Spi-general mailing list
>> > Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>> > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>> >
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spi-general mailing list
>> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
>
>--
>Luca Filipozzi
>_______________________________________________
>Spi-general mailing list
>Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.