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 thinking. 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 *gofundme.com <http://gofundme.com>* that reduces operational complexity, rather than increasing operational complexity in all our lives? On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 . > A sample letter of solicitation of funds can be found at  > >  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018401.html >  > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit?usp=sharing > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > <http://www.sugarlabs.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep