On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 07:07:45PM -0500, Tony Sebro wrote: > On 02/11/2015 06:57 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:31:08PM -0500, Tony Sebro wrote: > >> Inkscape's PLC is already bound by Conservancy's conflict of interest > >> policy [1]. > > Fwiw, this is the first I've seen of that. > Hmm. I'm fairly certain we sent the policy around to the > [email protected] address. If we didn't, I apologize. > Either way, we need to do a better job of making sure that projects are > aware of our organization's policy.
I don't recall receiving anything to or from a '[email protected]' address. Perhaps I got excluded? http://lists.sfconservancy.org shows no such list name. > >> The goal here is to prevent a corporation from taking > >> control over the project by hiring PLC members and/or otherwise > >> dominating the PLC, so that they could exploit Conservancy's nonprofit > >> structure to handle activities that really should fall under their > >> for-profit structure. It's not my intent to make this section onerous; > >> we can discuss ways to make it fit Inkscape's community standards. > > For much of the life of the project, Ted, Tim, and I all worked for > > Canonical, and served on the board as the project founders. Canonical > > could have cared less about Inkscape and had zero influence on board > > matters. > > > > Presently Jon and I both work for Samsung, having both just recently > > joined there. Samsung cares even less about Inkscape than Canonical > > did. Yet if this provision goes into effect, one or the other of us > > will have to step down. > > > Understood. For what it's worth, I've never received anyone complain or > insinuate that Inkscape is controlled or influenced by any one > corporation. Still: if an issue were to come up in the future, the > Inkscape Committee may benefit from avoiding even the optics of influence. > > What if we moved from "more than one member employed" to "more than 1/3" > or "more than 40%"? Would that give the Committee enough wiggle room > going forward? Probably should speak in fractions of sevenths, otherwise rounding is ambiguous. A hard limit of 3/7th would avoid majority control by any one employer while being flexible with membership. Bryce ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
