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

SPI is having a special meeting on 2020-06-22 at 20:00 UTC in #spi on
irc.oftc.net to vote on this proposed resolution:

Resolution 2020-06-08.mcs.1:
2020 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. For conferences held by SPI associated projects in 2020 where
SPI collects the conference sponsorship funds, SPI will waive
its 5% administrative fee.

2. SPI will refund the 5% administrative fee to Debian for the 2016-2019
Debian conferences

3. Future administrative fee decisions for conference sponsorships will
be determined at a later date.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Hi,

On Mon Jun 08, 2020 at 17:13:43 -0400, Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> SPI is having a special meeting on 2020-06-22 at 20:00 UTC in #spi on
> irc.oftc.net to vote on this proposed resolution:
>
> Resolution 2020-06-08.mcs.1:
> 2020 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. For conferences held by SPI associated projects in 2020 where
> SPI collects the conference sponsorship funds, SPI will waive
> its 5% administrative fee.
>
> 2. SPI will refund the 5% administrative fee to Debian for the 2016-2019
> Debian conferences
>
> 3. Future administrative fee decisions for conference sponsorships will
> be determined at a later date.

I dislike at least section 2 here, where we only refund Debian, but not
other conferences.

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/)

We might have made the mistake to not decuct the 5% in the past properly
and consistantly, but at least since 2017 we are doing this very
consistantly.

I would also outline that a good amount of transactions *AND WORK* of
SPI's treasuruer and since mid 2019 paid accountant is actually DebConf
transactions. So just waiving the fees for past DebConfs while SPI still
has to pay fees for the work done on DebConf seems inappropriate to me.

Having a paid accountant and having an official audit of SPI's fund do
cost money, and if DebConf wants those transactions being audited
externaly then it only seems fair to me they pay parts of those costs.

Given the above, i will definitely vote against such a resolution.

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

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

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
>

Hi all,

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:01 AM Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon Jun 08, 2020 at 17:13:43 -0400, Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> > SPI is having a special meeting on 2020-06-22 at 20:00 UTC in #spi on
> > irc.oftc.net to vote on this proposed resolution:
> >
> > Resolution 2020-06-08.mcs.1:
> > 2020 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. For conferences held by SPI associated projects in 2020 where
> > SPI collects the conference sponsorship funds, SPI will waive
> > its 5% administrative fee.
> >
> > 2. SPI will refund the 5% administrative fee to Debian for the 2016-2019
> > Debian conferences
> >
> > 3. Future administrative fee decisions for conference sponsorships will
> > be determined at a later date.
>
> I dislike at least section 2 here, where we only refund Debian, but not
> other conferences.

My worry (from X.org project) is that if we drop the 5% from
conference sponsorships (which is the biggest chunk of income for
X.org right now), then will SPI have enough money to run solid
services?

5% is already at the very low end, and I believe with the size of SPI
and all the projects it needs professional staff to keep track of all
the book-keeping, invoicing and everything so that projects can focus
on their missions. From the X.org side I think we need more of that,
not reduce SPI's budget here to support projects.

For XDC last year I think we had ~45k $ of sponsoring, but 10k was
tallied up with the organizers directly (so didn't go through SPI's
books, which was maybe not quite how it should have been done).

> 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/)
>
> We might have made the mistake to not decuct the 5% in the past properly
> and consistantly, but at least since 2017 we are doing this very
> consistantly.
>
> I would also outline that a good amount of transactions *AND WORK* of
> SPI's treasuruer and since mid 2019 paid accountant is actually DebConf
> transactions. So just waiving the fees for past DebConfs while SPI still
> has to pay fees for the work done on DebConf seems inappropriate to me.
>
> Having a paid accountant and having an official audit of SPI's fund do
> cost money, and if DebConf wants those transactions being audited
> externaly then it only seems fair to me they pay parts of those costs.

See above for my reasoning, I'm very much in support of this stance.
-Daniel

>
> Given the above, i will definitely vote against such a resolution.
>
> 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

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Greetings,

* Daniel Vetter (daniel(dot)vetter(at)ffwll(dot)ch) wrote:
> My worry (from X.org project) is that if we drop the 5% from
> conference sponsorships (which is the biggest chunk of income for
> X.org right now), then will SPI have enough money to run solid
> services?

That's definitely a great question and one which we haven't got a great
answer to right now. There's no doubt that conferences involve a lot of
expenses for SPI, particularly when SPI is handling travel
reimbursements but also through running down sponsor payments and
dealing with invoicing and other bits and pieces. We're starting to get
better tracking of what those costs are now, thanks to having a
contractor to handle those parts, but we are only just now getting an IT
contractor hired to work on updating our ancient and aging IT systems
which are causing problems in other areas.

Then there are other expenses, such as the annual external audit, having
our contractor agreements reviewed by counsel (including in other
countries as needed), that need to be considered.

> 5% is already at the very low end, and I believe with the size of SPI
> and all the projects it needs professional staff to keep track of all
> the book-keeping, invoicing and everything so that projects can focus
> on their missions. From the X.org side I think we need more of that,
> not reduce SPI's budget here to support projects.

We're certainly working to do more of that and hope to have some good
news on these areas in the (very) near future. We're glad to have your
support.

Thanks,

Stephen

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:55:03PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT
> >
> > 1. For conferences held by SPI associated projects in 2020 where
> > SPI collects the conference sponsorship funds, SPI will waive
> > its 5% administrative fee.
> >
> > 2. SPI will refund the 5% administrative fee to Debian for the 2016-2019
> > Debian conferences
> >
> > 3. Future administrative fee decisions for conference sponsorships will
> > be determined at a later date.
> I dislike at least section 2 here, where we only refund Debian, but not
> other conferences.

*that* and then I'm confused why the resolution title only speaks about 2020
if the resolution is about much more than that.

also I don't understand *why* SPI wants to give those 5% adminstrative fees
back? Surely there was adminstrative work and costs involved?

--
cheers,
Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Dance like no one's watching. Encrypt like everyone is.

Greetings,

* Holger Levsen (holger(at)layer-acht(dot)org) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:55:03PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > I dislike at least section 2 here, where we only refund Debian, but not
> > other conferences.
>
> *that* and then I'm confused why the resolution title only speaks about 2020
> if the resolution is about much more than that.

I agree that it ended up being a bit confused.

> also I don't understand *why* SPI wants to give those 5% adminstrative fees
> back? Surely there was adminstrative work and costs involved?

"wants" is perhaps a bit of a strong word for this. There were
certainly a lot of administrative work and costs involved.

For the -general list, I do want to pass on that SPI is currently
working with Debian through their representative to try to work through
this and make it all clearer, so you can expect an updated resolution
(should one be needed; it's possible there won't be one ultimately), so
it's unlikely that additional discussion of this specific resolution
among the broader group would be useful at this time.

Thanks!

Stephen

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

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.

@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

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:51 AM Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
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.
>
>
+1

On 2020-06-14 22 h 49, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:51 AM Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
> 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.
>>
>>
> +1
FWIW, I also think that's the most logical solution to this issue.

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ pollo(at)debian(dot)org / veronneau.org
⠈⠳⣄

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.

The latest draft of the resolution for tomorrow's meeting is attached.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Hi,

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.

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

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

Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> @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.

This resolution is the only substantive item on the agenda.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org