[Evergreen-governance-l] FW: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Details of fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy

[Dan Scott]

Hello - I'm CCing Bradley Kuhn on this thread again, as he is interested
in participating in this discussion (for obvious reasons!). I should
also note that I've worked with him a bit on trying to refine the
agreement proposal based on some of the feedback we had received so far;
I'll try to summarize inline:

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 03:49:30PM -0500, McKinney, Elizabeth wrote:
<snip> 
> In response to Sylvia's email from last Wednesday, I agree that we should consider carefully our scope and ensure that all sponsored activities are covered. 

Bradley and I have been working on some wording for that. Currently
we've written:

"""
The purpose of the Project is to produce, distribute, document,
and improve software that can be freely copied, modified and
redistributed by the general public (``Free Software''), and to
facilitate and organize its production, improvement and ease of use.
"""

It sounds like a reasonable characterization of the goals of the project
to me, at least.
 
> Sylvia's suggestion is good for how to handle an absence.  I would also like to suggest "Two of the three Representatives must indicate their approval of an action." be expanded to say that any two members making a decision consult with the whole committee before acting. 
> 
> I agree with the word change from "developer" to "interim oversight board".  

We've actually changed that to "Evergreen Oversight Board" to recognize
the body that is making the agreement with the Conservancy. If we went
with "Interim Oversight Board" then we would have to reopen the
agreement just to change the name in (hopefully!) a few months when we
finalize our structure.

> I agree with the 10% charge. 

Okay. To provide a concrete example of what that percentage means,
partially in answer to Jonathan Rochkind's concerns, that means X% of
any funds deposited in the Conservancy account earmarked for the
Evergreen Project - after processing fees by PayPal or whatever
mechanism the funds came through.

So, if I donated $100 to the Evergreen Project via a PayPal button on
the Conservancy web site, and we agreed to a 10% donation to the
Conservancy:

  * PayPal would deduct roughly 5% ($5.00) for its handling charge,
leaving $95.00

  * The Conservancy would then deduct 10% from the remaining funds:
$9.50, leaving $85.50 in our account after all is said and done.

If Evergreen Conference 2011 deposits conference registration fees into the
Conservancy account, then the Conservancy will indeed take 10% of those
fees right off the top. If, on the other hand, conferences continue to
run as they have in the past as an essentially separate-but-affiliated
event, with funds handled by the conference committee in a separate
account and only the proceeds going to the Project (eventually), then
only the proceeds would have the donation percentage directed to the
Conservancy.

Hopefully this helps. If Bradley and I can get through a couple of other
revisions to the agreement then I hope we'll be able to forward it to
the list in time for discussion at the meeting.