Community Members Directing Funds (was Re: Conflict of Interest policy, 1 March 2012 draft)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

>> * *Community Members Cannot Direct Funds.* Community Members are free
>> to offer suggestions and engage in open dialogue with PLC, key
>> developers regarding a Project's technical direction. However, each
>> PLC and Conservancy must together maintain sole and final control
>> over that Project's technical direction and charitable
>> mission. Community Members who make financial donations do not
>> receive any additional control over a Project's technical direction
>> beyond what is available to other vocal, active, and contributing
>> community members.

Ian Lynagh wrote at 21:41 (EST) on Thursday:
> That's a bit abstract for me. Is it intended to clarify that a
> community member could, for example, tell a PLC "I think it would be a
> good idea for your project to spend money on X. Oh, and by the way, we
> would be willing to be hired to do it."?

The goal of this term is to make sure that companies or individuals who
want specific features added to software don't have influence over the
technical and artistic direction of the Project via their donations.

I'll give you an anonymized example from a project that Conservancy
rejected:

 SeedyCorp wanted to get "street cred" for its Open Source project that
 it just threw over the wall.  SeedyCorp applies to Conservancy.
 Ultimately, the project is going to be completely developed by
 SeedyCorp contractors.  However, SeedyCorp would love to donate through
 a non-profit for various reasons to fund it, so it wants to join
 Conservancy, donate money, then use that money to pay contractors that
 it picks.

Obviously, I saw through this scenario and told SeedyCorp to (nicely) go
away (actually, I told them maybe forming a (c)(6) was a better option),
and Conservancy didn't take their application.  However, that gives you
a bit of a "worst case scenario" of what the COI is trying to address.

The same problem could even happen with an individual donor.  A wealthy
individual may have his/her own ideas about how the project should go,
and might want to influence what the developers do in an active way, but
would really like the 1040 Schedule A tax-deduction instead of just
funding developers using a Schedule C.


Ultimately, those worst-case scenarios are blatantly obvious and we can
avoid them easily.  The COI is trying to get at the middle ground where
things get sticky.  In other words, it seems "abstract" because it's
trying to get at the "inappropriate nudging" that a large donor might do
to try to push a Project's codebase into a specific direction.

Also, we have to make a clear distinction between someone pitching their
services as a contractor to do work that *Conservancy* and its Project
Leaders want done, and someone who is actually part of that Project
Leadership.  The discussion of "community" there is to recognize that
sometimes, these potential contractors and funders might all be
companies and individuals who all hang out on the Project's email list
together.

Thus, the section you quoted from is trying to get at this idea by
saying that the PLCs can *listen* to the community, but PLCs can't let
community *direct* their work -- at least when a community member is
giving money and resources to the Project.

Does that help clarify the point?  Is there a drafting change you'd
suggest to make the original text clearer on this?

> If so, could a PLC person do the same?

So, PLC Person's volunteer jobs under the FSAs *are* to direct the
technical and artistic work of the project.  So, as long as the PLC
Person isn't conflicted out for some other reason, the PLC should indeed
give such direction!


I'd note that sometimes, PLC Persons donate to Conservancy, which has a
whole 'nother-can-o'-worms, but that's probably off topic in this
sub-thread -- other than to say that when they make such donations, they
may be conflicted out of a lot of spending decisions for the Project.

OTOH, typically, PLC Persons that donate tend to give $20-$50/year to
their projects: in that case, the amount is so small that we're not
going to freak out if that same person happens to suggest we reimburse
someone for a cab ride to a conference that costs $30. :)
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy