[Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[José Miguel García]

Motion to request a membership donation

Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar
Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of
2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are
involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not
paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who
donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The
donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as
low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from
members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600
from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename,
subject to SLOB approval.

Secundo la moción.



___________________
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay

2016-06-04 14:24 GMT-03:00 Dave Crossland <dave en lab6.com>:

> Hi
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 07:48, Adam Holt <holt en laptop.org> wrote:
>
>> As this is a very thoughtful proposal, I contacted SFConservancy's
>> general counsel to verify it is legal given 501(c)3 non-profit laws can be
>> strict, and he emphasized 2 things:
>>
>> (1) no tangible benefits may be offered in return for a donation
>> (otherwise it is not a donation, by law!)
>>
>> (2) if such transactions were ever to become quasi-mandatory (similar to
>> membership dues in many other organizations) he would strongly prefer we
>> not use the word "Member" and rather use terminology like "Patron"
>> (commonly-used word in charitable circles, and doesn't imply explicit
>> benefits), "Lab Assistants," or "Sugar Labs Official Patrons" (SLOPs, not
>> my choice!), or "Sweet Teeth," etc, with a fun logo (that fits in with the
>> existing "Sugar Labs" brand).
>>
>
> Thanks for checking in with Conservancy on this :)
>
> Fortunately no benefits in the motion are tangible, and no transactions
> are mandatory.
>
>
>> Finally while I'm not at all against this very thoughtful proposal going
>> forward increasingly seriously, there is a *Ton* of overhead to managing
>> $12 donations,
>
>
> Adam, I don't understand your assertion at all!
>
> I imagine that when someone sends $12 via PayPal, then Paypal
> automatically takes its fee and deposits the remainder in the Conservancy
> account; then Conservancy is obliged to perform the light and simple task
> of transferring 10% of that to their account and 90% to their SL ear-marked
> account, which they do with ledger-cli, which they are familiar with. I
> imagine that Conservancy staff are familiar with performing this task on a
> weekly basis, if not more frequently. I do not think this will be a burden.
> Have any Conservancy staff expressed that this will be a burden? If it was
> a burden, they are earning their 10%, so I would see no reason to not to
> place that burden on them, if there was one, which there isn't.
>
> Please list all the management tasks you think are associated with a $12
> donation to be performed by anyone.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs en lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/attachments/20160606/effc5d2e/attachment.html>