+1 to Noam and Ethan's simple/intuitive/clear idea of drawing the dividing line for pricing tiers between for-profit and nonprofit. I find the Canadian terminology 'not-for-profit' to be better and clearer: you might be a start-up and make no profit (yet) so, as such, be a 'nonprofit' de facto, but really you are not not-for-profit, you are for-profit. ;)
So, to Greg's question > How about small companies: do we ask a start-up less than we ask Monsanto? my answer is no, keep it market rate. Start-ups raise money so they can afford good talent or, in this case, good training. Raising funds is part of (sometimes, the core of) the start-up game. Personally I think a sliding scale doesn't make any sense: Tell me what your profits were last year, I'll run my linear model and give you a rate? If you are a new start-up, maybe you were not even around last year. Profits from big corps travel the world, fiscal policies are different everywhere and subject to fraud... Garbage in, garbage out, basically. I understand that the for-profit/not-for-profit divide may sound unsophisticated. I know that big vs small speaks more to Greg's mind. But I think it's good for the sake of transparency and clarity. Mission over bank account balance (it's not like big corps typically use their big profits to share and invest 'proportionally'). Marianne, living the start-up life ;) On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Ethan White <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. I agree with Greg and others that, in general, choosing not to > participate in workshops at certain locations due to ethical concerns > should primarily be the choice of individual instructors regarding whether > they want to teach or not, not a broader SCF decision on whether to run the > workshops at all. > 2. I like the idea of a split fee structure for for-profit vs. non-profit > groups. I understand Greg's point about rich vs. poor, but that's more > difficult to handle (e.g., what are we measuring to represent wealth, > what's the dividing line, should it be a sliding scale, etc.). My general > feeling is that any extra funds from for-profits (or rich) institutions > should go to SCF rather than the instructors, at least until SCF is on a > very firm financial footing. > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists. > software-carpentry.org >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
