Hi, Just a note on terminology (sorry, I have OCD) before it all gets confused.
To clarify, does the suggestion "not-for-profit don't pay" mean "they pay only admin fee not the market rate"? And "for-profit" pay the market (well, whatever SCF will decide it to be) rate? This would solve (?) the issue raised by Raniere. Cheers, Aleksandra -- Training Leader The Software Sustainability Institute, University of Manchester w: www.software.ac.uk t: @aleksandrana | @SoftwareSaved On 5 March 2015 at 12:38, Raniere Silva <[email protected]> wrote: >> - I favour the "for-profits pay/not-for-profits don't pay", single-price >> camp. > > The "not-for-profits don't pay" can be dangerous to our sustainability > outside US. Here in Brazil almost 100% of the universities that can be > interested in our workshops are 100% public funding and with not-for-profit > status. > Going with "not-for-profits don't pay" will mean that we will need to find > another way to pay administration hours for workshops in Brazil. > For the Brazilian case, we could try get national support for administration > cost of all workshops in Brazil in the same way that Brazilian Federal > Government has a national subscription to many non-open access journals. > > Raniere > > _______________________________________________ > 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
