Re: Proposed resolution: Clarify SPI 5% administrative fee for conference sponsorships

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:50:35AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Sun Jun 21, 2020 at 19:02:06 -0400, Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> > Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > > @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.
> > Resolution 2020-06-22.mcs.1:
> > Conferences and SPI 5% fee
> >
> > WHEREAS
> >
> > 1. Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (SPI) is a Debian Trusted
> > Organization.
> >
> > 2. The annual Debian Conference (Debian) utilizes SPI to collect
> > some of the conference sponsorship funds.
> >
> > 3. SPI has inconsistently charged its 5% administrative fee for
> > conference sponsorships.
> >
> > 4. SPI has not yet determined the effect of waiving the 5%
> > administrative fee for conference sponsorships in perpetuity.
> >
> > THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT
> >
> > 1. Going forward, SPI will consistently charge all projects donations
> > and conference sponsorships a 5% administrative fee, as is SPI's
> > current practice.
> >
> > 2. SPI will not retroactively charge Debian its 5% adminsitrative fee for
> > Debian conferences held prior to 2016.
> >
> > 3. SPI will not refund associated projects the 5% adminsitrative fee for
> > conferences held 2016-2019.
>
> This resolution still has not addressed my concern, that this resolution
> speaks about Debian / DebConf only here, while we also have other
> associated projects, that might also be affected.

@Martin Zobel-Helas: Doesn't resolution clause #1, which says "all
projects" (plural possessive apostrophe missing) address your concern on
a go-forward basis? The other two clauses are specifically about
answering specific Debian/DebConf questions because they are the only
associate project who was treated differently (to the best of my
knowledge).

@Michael Schultheiss: I have a vet appointment at 20:30 UTC, so if you'd
be so kind as to put this resolution at the beginning of the agenda, I'd
appreciate it.

--
Luca Filipozzi