Re: Call for OPW project ideas
I highly doubt being an OPW mentor will increase the likelihood of my ending up in court. I think that is not in question here. The point is that if a big organisation who can afford to get sued is not willing to take a risk, why should an individual volunteer be *explicitly* asked to do that when there is seemingly no similar such demand made of the mentor organisation for which they are volunteering their free time? Magdalen p.s. the terms and conditions of your ISP will be on their website. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Call for OPW project ideas
On So, 2014-11-09 at 23:09 -0500, Karen Sandler wrote: This is really mundane: I agreed to a more restrictive indemnification than this by simply reading CNN.com today. So has anybody who's ever used Skype, or Flash, or Facebook. (Seriously, check the ToS of Facebook or CNN, the two I bothered to check; they're very similar and include the provision about attorneys' fees.) Or the Internet, really; I'm surprised I didn't have to agree to indemnify my ISP, though maybe that was part of my contract and I just forgot. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and I highly doubt being an OPW mentor will increase the likelihood of my ending up in court. We very much tried to limit the contracts as much as possible, to figure out how to set up the infrastructure to host the program without unduly burdening the intern and mentor contracts only have indemnities triggered for gross negligence, recklessness or intentional wrongdoing, as discussed in the previous thread (this is actually a pretty high bar). Not only do I think that this legal infrastructure is necessary in order for the Foundation to host the program, but some funders also require that it be in place. The indemnification is something that I personally still find irritating[1]. However as I understand now this seems to be pretty much standard procedure in the US and unfortunately necessary. And I do see that the one in these contracts is pretty limited. What I am mostly wondering about right now is the limitation of liability section. I kind of expected to see a provision to limit liabilities between the intern and mentor, but this appears not to be the case. There is no direct contract between these two parties, but I simply do not know whether liabilities could still apply (as a result of the contracts)[2]. That said, it probably is a lot easier for a US citizen to sign such a contract. I am German, and I have very little idea about what I would be getting myself into legally. Yup, the risks are *very* *low*, but I do already find a slightly increased possibility of being pulled into a lawsuit on US territory kind of scary. I do believe you when you are saying that the contracts were designed with a lot of care. It is just that I would be very reluctant to trust a contract that is designed for and falls under a jurisdiction that I know pretty much nothing about, and where it might be hard to defend myself legally. Benjamin [1] I have don't remember seeing an indemnification (or even much of a contract) when helping at events done by charitable organizations here in germany. My guess is that it is simply not really necessary, though it could also be that many organizations are not that careful. [2] And if there might be liabilities, what jurisdiction would apply in case either (or both) mentor and intern are not US citizens. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no clear answer to this though. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Call for OPW project ideas
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Karen Sandler ka...@punkrocklawyer.com wrote: On 2014-11-10 05:45, Magdalen Berns wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Karen Sandler ka...@punkrocklawyer.com wrote: On 2014-11-09 20:23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 18:48 +, Magdalen Berns wrote: The challenges the OPW organisers face is in figuring out how to encourage projects and mentors to sign up and yet also protect GNOME from a potential lawsuit in the event that things go horribly wrong as a result of something that may not be GNOME's fault. I don't see much of a challenge. The wording under question is: For only situations arising out of your gross negligence, recklessness or intentional wrongdoing, you shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GNOME, its officers, directors, and employees from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of your participation in the Program; your Mentoring Activities (including correspondence with the Participant or Participants, and modification of any Participant’s source code or written materials); or your violation of this Agreement. This is really mundane: I agreed to a more restrictive indemnification than this by simply reading CNN.com today. So has anybody who's ever used Skype, or Flash, or Facebook. (Seriously, check the ToS of Facebook or CNN, the two I bothered to check; they're very similar and include the provision about attorneys' fees.) Or the Internet, really; I'm surprised I didn't have to agree to indemnify my ISP, though maybe that was part of my contract and I just forgot. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and I highly doubt being an OPW mentor will increase the likelihood of my ending up in court. Thanks Michael. We very much tried to limit the contracts as much as possible, to figure out how to set up the infrastructure to host the program without unduly burdening the intern and mentor contracts only have indemnities triggered for gross negligence, recklessness or intentional wrongdoing, as discussed in the previous thread (this is actually a pretty high bar). Not only do I think that this legal infrastructure is necessary in order for the Foundation to host the program, but some funders also require that it be in place. Obviously. The thing about funders is that a lot of them are businesses who will used to imposing terms on individuals and figuring out how to remove any accountability from themselves. As a charitable organisation, of course GNOME is sensible to take steps to listen to the advice and recommendations of its funders about how OPW is run but that should not mean that we have to blindly use their design in a case where it is going to be detrimental to OPW's core mission. It's important to recognise what motivates people in something like this because ultimately, no amount of money that these funders have to offer is worth the trade off if OPW finds it is not able to find decent mentors and the interns do not end up staying on as contributors FLOSS because they have had a poor experience under this model. These women are not pieces of pasta you can throw at a wall to see which ones are sticky enough to stay on it. They are human beings who have already been identified as being likely to face discrimination in FLOSS. It is a mistake to apply a generic legal structure which let's face it, have absolutely no track record of solving the problems that OPW is trying to address (if anything the converse). I absolutely agree and love the pasta analogy :D Thanks. I' have been waiting for an excuse to air that one. Our legal structure was designed by us with deep consultation from a law firm that helped us pro bono (Justin Colannino who worked with me at SFLC was our primary contact and he brought in varied experience, like employment law, from partners in the firm). Our starting point was GSoC because it's the closest program to what we're doing but we veered from it considerably, both to impose less liability to our mentor and intern participants and also to reflect that our program is very different (and that we're a nonprofit). What we settled on is the lightest weight agreement I could come to with those lawyers that was functional for the Foundation. I get that. I do, but I wonder is where the mentor organisation fits in to all of this: What will compel a mentor organisation to get involved with OPW for the right reason and take their own role in OPW seriously while they are seemingly not deemed responsible for the mentors who they are signing up for OPW? Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Call for OPW project ideas
On 2014-11-10 04:38, Magdalen Berns wrote: I highly doubt being an OPW mentor will increase the likelihood of my ending up in court. I think that is not in question here. The point is that if a big organisation who can afford to get sued is not willing to take a risk, why should an individual volunteer be EXPLICITLY asked to do that when there is seemingly no similar such demand made of the mentor organisation for which they are volunteering their free time? I'm sorry... I've been traveling a lot and am not caught up on emailing. I hope to find time to address more of these concerns on list but I'm completely swamped now. I do want to say that many of our participating orgs are not really orgs at all. Some have absolutely no corporate form. Getting them to sign is not possible. Also, of the orgs that do have corporate forms, some of those aren't big and can't afford to be sued either. We have evaluated getting the mentor orgs to sign but after discussing at length with our pro bono counsel when we had the legal infrastructure written up we decided it made a lot more sense to set it up as we have, as the mentors have the most control over their participation in the program, ie their ability not to behave with gross negligence, recklessness or intentional wrongdoing. We do meet with the mentor org admins before allowing an org to join the program discussing the expectations for participation. Mentorship and expectations around it are a big part of the discussion. karen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Call for OPW project ideas
Hi, These contracts are very standard in the US. Some examples form local nonprofits in Chicago: 1. Habitat for Humanity https://www.windycityhabitat.org/uploads/files/WCHFH_Release_Waiver.pdf 2. Pumping Station:One https://wiki.pumpingstationone.org/images/Liability-waiver.pdf 3. Friends of the Chicago River https://s3.amazonaws.com/chicagoriver/rich/rich_files/rich_files/807/original/focr-20minor-20waiver-202014.pdf Cheers, Meg On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Jan Claeys li...@janc.be wrote: Benjamin Berg schreef op ma 10-11-2014 om 16:30 [+0100]: [1] I have don't remember seeing an indemnification (or even much of a contract) when helping at events done by charitable organizations here in germany. My guess is that it is simply not really necessary, though it could also be that many organizations are not that careful. I don't know German law, but in Belgium/Flanders the law says that: * Any non-profit that works with volunteers, is required to provide its volunteers with documentation (this can be oral, but most non-profits do it on paper, and some will require you to sign for receiving it, because that's easier to prove) that explains their rights plights, including insurance, education offers[1], code of conduct, etc. (this is not (usually) a contract though) * Any non-profit that is a legal entity (or is part of a larger non-profit that is a legal entity) that works with volunteers, is legally liable for the actions of their volunteers while doing what they are supposed to do as a volunteer (unless they can prove gross misconduct or the like, of course), * Any non-profit that is a legal entity (or is part of a larger non-profit that is a legal entity) that works with volunteers, is legally required to have an insurance covering damage, including civil liability, caused by or to their volunteers (to some degree; insurances that cover more than legally required are possible) In addition: currently the minimal required insurance for non-profits is paid for by the Nationale Loterij (national lottery) on request, so volunteers are often insured for free (to some degree). When I was on the board of a non-profit, that insurance requirement the offer by the Nationale Loterij didn't exist yet, but IIRC we paid a couple 100 euro / year for the insurance that we had back then (even before it was a requirement, most non-profits had insurances like that, because it solves most likely disputes with volunteers easily for what is a rather modest amount). I wouldn't be surprised if Germany has some similar laws and/or arrangements that make individual agreements unnecessary in most cases, while also spreading responsibility quite fairly (and avoiding most stupid lawsuits because of the insurance). [1] education in this case could mean that OPW mentor volunteers have access to educational material guiding their work, and maybe having support from a person/organisation with experience in it (this person could also be a volunteer, of course). -- Jan Claeys ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
