Aleksandra, you exactly captured what I meant. =) Thanks for clarifying!
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Aleksandra Pawlik
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
