As this is a very thoughtful proposal, I contacted SFConservancy's general
counsel to verify it is legal given 501(c)3 non-profit laws can be strict,
and he emphasized 2 things:

(1) no tangible benefits may be offered in return for a donation (otherwise
it is not a donation, by law!)

(2) if such transactions were ever to become quasi-mandatory (similar to
membership dues in many other organizations) he would strongly prefer we
not use the word "Member" and rather use terminology like "Patron"
(commonly-used word in charitable circles, and doesn't imply explicit
benefits), "Lab Assistants," or "Sugar Labs Official Patrons" (SLOPs, not
my choice!), or "Sweet Teeth," etc, with a fun logo (that fits in with the
existing "Sugar Labs" brand).

Finally while I'm not at all against this very thoughtful proposal going
forward increasingly seriously, there is a *Ton* of overhead to managing
$12 donations, and I'm wondering how exactly this will be managed?  So if a
competent Donations/Financial Manager (or fully-outsourced mechanism
perhaps?) is tightly drawn up, that does not place burdensome obligations
on SFC and other magical / non-existent financial/operations people we've
simply not identified yet, then I personally would be much more likely to
vote for such a proposal -- if it based on substance rather than wishful

In short: if legit, clean operational mechanics have (IN FACT) been
carefully designed.  Or are on a road to come together and inspire the
confidence of all.  Rather than (worst case!) punting management of
microdonations / microreporting / micro-thank-you-letters (etc) to SFC's
forthcoming the PayPal donation button they are trying to create for Sugar
Labs in the coming weeks hopefully, which is Very Far from a complete
answer.  Possibly someone out there knows a fully managed/appropriate
solution similar to * <>* that reduces
operational complexity, rather than increasing operational complexity in
all our lives?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Walter Bender <>

> We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
> Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
> then we can bring it up for a vote by email.
> regards.
> -walter
> Motion to request a membership donation
> Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar
> Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of
> 2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are
> involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not
> paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who
> donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The
> donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as
> low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from
> members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600
> from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename,
> subject to SLOB approval.
> ----
> Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
> A sample letter of solicitation of funds can be found at [2]
> [1]
> [2]
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list

Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ !
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Reply via email to