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

[Ganesh Sittampalam]

On 02/03/2012 15:35, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>>> * *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.

Does this have to be a hard-and-fast rule? I understand the SeedyCorp
example, but the competitive bids rule would have ensured they didn't
get a guarantee that their contractors would get the work.

Consider a project that has a number of possible enhancements, all of
which would be worthwhile to make if resources were available. It could
have a funding drive where people can explicitly donate for a certain
enhancement they particularly wanted. Would doing something like this
necessarily be in conflict with non-profit status?

Ganesh
_______________________________________________
policies-discuss mailing list
policies-discuss at sfconservancy.org
http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/policies-discuss