@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 <zo...@spi-inc.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 <zo...@spi-inc.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@lists.spi-inc.org > > > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Spi-general mailing list > > Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org > > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general > > > -- > Luca Filipozzi > _______________________________________________ > Spi-general mailing list > Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general -- Luca Filipozzi _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
