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

@all: Having slept on things, I'm changing my position from (2a) to (2c)
since it is more appropriate to correct the lack of charging Debian 5%
on sponsorships than it is to correct the actual/perceived
miscommunication between Debian and SPI.

So, for clarity:
- do not refund Debian for 2016-2019; do not charge fees on Debian
sponsorships prior to 2016; do not refund other projects (2c)
- charge all projects' donations and sponsorships the same 5% fee, which
is the current practice (3b)

@president: kindly consider revising the draft resolution per above
since there are now several of us in holding this view.

Thanks,

Luca

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 05:09:52PM +0000, Luca Filipozzi 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) 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

--
Luca Filipozzi