[Board] IRS 501c3 response

[Daniel Morissette]

On 12-11-29 2:14 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Arnulf,
> Minutes added, including link to logs:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-11-22
>

Unfortunately there seems to be a bug with the IRC logs (unless it's a 
local issue just for me?). For the record, here are logs of the meeting 
that I could extract from my own #osgeo channel history:


2:59:39 PM FrankW_: Today's board meeting agenda is at: 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-11-22
2:59:42 PM sigq: Title: Board Meeting 2012-11-22 - OSGeo Wiki (at 
wiki.osgeo.org)
3:00:09 PM FrankW_: I'll wait a minute to call things to order but you 
might want to review the past meeting minutes in advance:
3:00:11 PM FrankW_: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-10-11
3:00:12 PM jachym: *is here*
3:00:12 PM sigq: Title: Board Meeting 2012-10-11 - OSGeo Wiki (at 
wiki.osgeo.org)
mlucas [~mlucas at 208.78.149.13] entered the room. (3:02:54 PM)
3:03:51 PM FrankW_: OK, lets get started.  Roll Call.
3:03:53 PM FrankW_: *is present.*
3:03:58 PM mpg: her
3:03:59 PM mlucas: is present
3:03:59 PM mpg: here
3:04:01 PM dmorissette: *here*
3:04:01 PM CameronShorter: here
3:04:01 PM jmckenna: here
3:04:03 PM aghisla: here
pmbatty [a86759d8 at gateway/web/freenode/ip.168.103.89.216] entered the 
room. (3:04:03 PM)
3:04:33 PM pmbatty: Hi all, sorry ,was running late from previous meeting
3:04:44 PM FrankW_: I propose that I chair and mpg acts as secretary - 
any objections?
3:04:47 PM FrankW_: pmbatty: you are just on time!
3:05:01 PM FrankW_: First item, review previous minutes: 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-10-11
3:05:02 PM sigq: Title: Board Meeting 2012-10-11 - OSGeo Wiki (at 
wiki.osgeo.org)
3:05:25 PM CameronShorter: Last meeting's minutes look good to me. I 
move they be accepted.
3:05:30 PM FrankW_: +1
3:05:35 PM dmorissette: +0 (was absent)
3:05:35 PM aghisla: +1
3:05:44 PM mlucas: +0 absent
3:05:44 PM mpg: +0 (absent)
3:05:47 PM jmckenna: *adding agenda item*
jachym left the room (quit: Quit: jachym). (3:05:54 PM)
3:05:55 PM jmckenna: +1
jachym [~jachym at ip-89-176-113-47.net.upcbroadband.cz] entered the room. 
(3:06:14 PM)
3:06:27 PM FrankW_: jachym: ok with the previous minutes?
3:06:34 PM jachym: sorry, network seems to be little bit unstable
3:06:39 PM jachym: yah, no objections
3:06:43 PM pmbatty: +1
3:06:51 PM FrankW_: motion carried.
3:07:04 PM FrankW_: next item: FOSS4G 2013 budget as distributed on 
board-priv.
3:07:27 PM FrankW_: Just before the meeting I realized I hadn't really 
reviewed it in any detail in the hopes it could be made public which (as 
far as I know) did not happen.
3:07:44 PM pmbatty: Sorry I didn't redistribute to board, had intended 
to but been swamped on other things
jachym_cellp [~AndChat47 at ip-89-176-113-47.net.upcbroadband.cz] entered 
the room. (3:08:06 PM)
3:08:06 PM FrankW_: We have a version we can make public?
3:08:16 PM jmckenna: *item added, can be left till next week if need be*
3:08:27 PM pmbatty: We do, the document itself is fine to make public
3:08:44 PM FrankW_: ok, now to comment.  Does anyone have questions or 
concerns?
3:09:08 PM dmorissette: To be honest I didn't review it either, doh
3:09:14 PM pmbatty: There were a couple of comments in my email about 
potential sponsors that Steven said he wasn't ready to announce publicly yet
3:09:15 PM jachym: in denver, the costs were about $500 IIRC, right?
3:09:37 PM pmbatty: As in the registration fee?
3:09:42 PM jachym: yes
3:10:07 PM pmbatty: That's the right order of magnitude for early 
registration, I think late one was more, maybe $650
3:10:09 PM CameronShorter: I don't have concerns over budget, but have 
only applied minimal review, trusting pmbatty's judgement.
3:10:56 PM pmbatty: If folks haven't reviewed it we can extend a little 
longer, do it via email perhaps
3:11:05 PM FrankW_: I am slightly confused by the inclusion of hotel 
rooms in the budget.
3:11:16 PM pmbatty: Main time issue is just that we should approve it 
before signing contract with venue I think
3:11:28 PM pmbatty: Which I expect to come soon but we don't have it yet
3:11:37 PM pmbatty: Hotel rooms was an addition
3:12:02 PM pmbatty: They have about 200 rooms in hotel on site
3:12:30 PM pmbatty: And team felt confident of filling things and that 
it would be best if we had the whole hotel - I believe
3:12:31 PM FrankW_: and we are on the hook to fill these rooms?  I see a 
mention of "729" in the rooms row.  Perhaps that is room-days?
3:12:40 PM pmbatty: We can get Steven to confirm
3:13:04 PM FrankW_: I think this inclusion contributed to making the 
over all dollar amounts going in/out higher than I had expected.
3:13:06 PM pmbatty: For any specific questions we should get Steven to 
confirm
3:13:40 PM FrankW_: What is the feeling of the board?  I am actually ok 
with it as is and wouldn't mind adopting it unless anyone has questions 
they want to hold up for.
3:14:27 PM mlucas: I'm ok with it
3:14:31 PM pmbatty: I am very comfortable with the team and their 
experience, have done high level review of the budget and am good with it
3:14:58 PM jachym: just for me, please short summary: all the financial 
risk goes to conference orga team, right?
3:15:03 PM pmbatty: I'm okay distributing doc to board list and having a 
few more days for questions if folks want to do that
3:15:33 PM pmbatty: Jachym, no that's not the case
3:15:33 PM dmorissette: I'd be ok to adopt it, mostly based on my trust 
of the team (since we can't analyze those numbers in details anyway)
3:15:50 PM pmbatty: OSGeo pays the up front deposit
3:16:03 PM FrankW_: The normal situation is that OSGeo is taking on the 
financial risk which is why we need to approve the budget and keep an 
eye on things.
3:16:07 PM FrankW_: And also we get the profit.
3:16:09 PM mpg: right
3:16:11 PM CameronShorter: I'm +1 to accept budget, also largely based 
upon trust of team.
3:16:13 PM aghisla: I also am ok with it and trust the organisers. 
moreover, due to missed foss4g 2012, I'd expect some more people to 
participate.
3:16:22 PM pmbatty: And we underwrite it too, though whether that's 
actually got into a contract has varied from year to year
3:16:23 PM jachym: thanks
3:16:35 PM FrankW_: Would someone like to make a motion?
3:16:55 PM pmbatty: I propose we accept the budget for FOSS4G 2013
3:17:01 PM CameronShorter: +1
3:17:04 PM jachym: +1
3:17:08 PM FrankW_: I'll take that as a motion: +1
3:17:08 PM aghisla: +1
3:17:13 PM dmorissette: +1
3:17:22 PM mpg: +1
3:17:31 PM jmckenna: +0 have not reviewed
3:17:53 PM FrankW_: motion carried.  mpg could you make sure a public 
copy of the budget is linked from the minutes?
3:18:00 PM mpg: will do
3:18:12 PM FrankW_: Next item: corporate status - 501(c)3, etc.
3:18:13 PM jachym: one note: I hope for some discount for early 
registers and/or students
3:18:40 PM FrankW_: dmorissette: would you like to take the lead on this 
discussion?
mloskot [~mloskot at cpc11-dals17-2-0-cust301.hari.cable.virginmedia.com] 
entered the room. (3:18:53 PM)
mloskot left the room (quit: Changing host). (3:18:53 PM)
mloskot [~mloskot at osgeo/member/mloskot] entered the room. (3:18:53 PM)
3:19:06 PM mlucas: +1
3:19:17 PM dmorissette: The options have been discussed on the board 
list, and the three plausible scenarios are outlined in the agenda
3:20:10 PM mlucas: My vote is for B
3:20:32 PM dmorissette: I don't know if there is much to add at this 
point… we need to decide which way we go…
3:20:39 PM FrankW_: I have attempted to collect information on the 
non-profit without special 501(c) status but I haven't really found much.
3:20:45 PM jachym: I see B as subset of A - the subsidiary can be formed 
basically any time later, right?
3:20:46 PM jmckenna: from email thread seems like B is popular
3:21:00 PM dmorissette: FrankW_: can you be a nonprofit without 501c status?
3:21:15 PM dmorissette: jachym:  that is also my thinking
3:21:23 PM CameronShorter: dmorissette, do we know how much (order of 
magnitude) tax burdon we have if we go option C?
3:21:35 PM FrankW_: It is not clear.  Obviously you could be a business 
that just never makes profit but I'm not sure that works for a 
membership organization.
3:21:41 PM dmorissette: CameronShorter:  I emailed my guestimates before
3:21:56 PM mpg: jachym: yes, that's my take also -- B now, A later if needed
3:22:06 PM dmorissette: CameronShorter:  probably in the order of 
10-20k$ … guestimates that we came up with when I talked ot the attroney
3:22:09 PM jachym: and another point (maybe I should add it to the 
agenda as well): D) to move it out of US jurisdiction (but that would be 
the most complicated one)
3:22:38 PM dbb: members: the tax liability is one side of the equation, 
the means to collect revenue is the other, including donations from the 
public that carry a tax relief to the donor
3:22:38 PM jachym: not sure about benefits it would bring
3:22:46 PM jmckenna: I sure here about option D when I travel for OSGeo
3:22:54 PM FrankW_: I feel that option (b) substantially restricts our 
ability to do stuff - that is my main concern.
3:22:55 PM mpg: jachym: we'd still need to retroactively file for the 
previous years
3:22:58 PM dmorissette: please all keep in mind that any significant 
change in the way we operate needs to come with a transition plan to 
address legal, fiscal, as well as soft/community aspects
3:23:44 PM jachym: (at least some) complications are clear to me
3:24:04 PM jachym: I do not see it as option for the moment
3:24:06 PM FrankW_: But perhaps we just need to "interprete" things in 
terms of education.
3:24:08 PM jmckenna: true daniel. we have limited resources
3:24:18 PM mlucas: I recall that lawyer advise we might just file the 
current year and probably never get challenged
3:25:03 PM CameronShorter: FrankW_, I now erring toward option C, as 
pointed out by Arnulf that we would be less restricted in what we can 
do, and a tax burdon of $20K is something we can bare.
3:25:50 PM dmorissette: FrankW_: I think you got it right: we just need 
to "interprete" everything we do as being educational… 501c3 is 
restrictive, but if we try it and fail then the worst case scenario is 
that they revoke our nonprofit status after an audit? It would always be 
time for option C at that time
3:25:53 PM FrankW_: Our deadline is related to responding to the IRS 
letter about whether we are willing to adjust our application as 
suggsted.  Is that right?  And it is basically now?
3:26:08 PM jmckenna: CameronShorter: you/arnulf make a good point
3:26:31 PM mlucas: In a much earlier discussion with Tyler, wet were 
given the advice to just start acting like a 501c3 as it is taking so 
long to get approved.  I'd recommend we simply respond we are modifying 
the application to go with option B
blk left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 255 seconds). (3:26:35 PM)
3:26:43 PM aghisla: option C is for me the one to choose for the long 
run. of course as we need to take a decision today, it is not really 
feasible
3:26:48 PM dmorissette: FrankW_: yes the deadline is about responding to 
the IRS letter. We got a new extension to Dec 10 to submit our response… 
but we need ot decide ASAP in order to start working on the response
3:26:54 PM FrankW_: In light of the fact that losing 501(c)3 status is 
likely not the end of the world for us I'm actually now more willing to 
go with option b. 
3:27:39 PM FrankW_: I'd also like to see if project sponsorship can be 
rejiggered a bit to make it acceptable.  But that is a followup discussion.
bwreilly left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection). 
(3:27:43 PM)
3:28:06 PM mlucas: actually, losing our space in line to get 501c3 approval
3:28:07 PM pmbatty: Maybe we should check that there are no penalties if 
we are designated as 501(c)3 and have it revoked?
3:28:11 PM jmckenna: and as time passes and i hear more and more of 
demands of this decision my feelings keep falling lower to B and C
pramsey [~pramsey at S0106001ff3c5ddcb.gv.shawcable.net] entered the room. 
(3:28:13 PM)
3:28:19 PM pmbatty: Other than paying taxes owed
3:30:13 PM dmorissette: pmbatty:  that's the tough part about managing a 
foundation that you don't own… if it was my own business I'd say let's 
take the risk and cross the bridge when we get to the river… but since 
the decision does not involve only myself, we have to consider possible 
penalities down the road, etc...
3:30:15 PM mlucas: B and respond to the IRS letter would be my 
recommendation
bwreilly [~bwreilly at 174.127.143.26] entered the room. (3:30:18 PM)
3:30:20 PM dbb: *recalls being audited by the IRS once and having some 
checking accounts frozen for a long while, which was highly unpleasant*
3:30:38 PM FrankW_: would someone like to bring forward motion?
3:30:47 PM dmorissette: before the motion...
3:31:10 PM FrankW_: *observes that even if OSGeo's finances were frozen 
we could actually operate fairly effectively even if some of us had to 
pay out of pocket for a few things.*
3:31:17 PM dmorissette: if we aim for option B, we need to decide on a 
plan B for the former project sponsorship program… where do we send the 
accumulated money
3:31:23 PM mpg: we do NOT want to not pay and then hope for the best
3:31:56 PM mpg: as Directors, that's a dangerous position for us to take
3:32:17 PM dmorissette: mpg 	agreed… but then if we go by the book we 
need to stop many of our activities
3:32:20 PM FrankW_: dmorissette: my opinion is that we stop accepting 
project sponsorships but we continue to pay out for projects activities 
- asking that they include an educational justification.
3:32:33 PM mpg: dmorissette: understood
3:32:46 PM CameronShorter: Option B: Avoid tax, drop sponsor program, 
possibly migrate to C later. ::: Option C: Pay $20K tax now, pay tax on 
any future earnings. Will future earning from foss4g be taxed, or if we 
spend everything we earn cause our tax burden to be $0.
3:32:58 PM dmorissette: I'm wondering what would be recommended to us if 
OSGeo was founded today
3:32:59 PM mpg: *would resign under a "hope we don't get audited" model*
3:33:58 PM FrankW_: I feel we have been, and are looking to operate 
properly under IRS regulations as we understand them and while an audit 
could be painful I don't forsee major issues.
3:34:10 PM FrankW_: And I'm more sensitive about the IRS now that I'm in 
the US. 
3:34:30 PM dmorissette: pmbatty:  there was a question from GITA about 
our nonprofit status. do you know what that question was about? would 
nonprofit vs taxable status have made any difference for FOSS4G surplus?
3:35:09 PM jachym: what is again the benefit of B over C (except for not 
paying tax) ?
3:35:30 PM dmorissette: jachym:  my main question wiht C is "who owns 
the corporation"?
3:35:39 PM pmbatty: I'm not sure of all the details, but I think they 
had some concerns about running the conference as a non-profit 
organization (in some sense), which they were, but we weren't (arguably)
3:35:47 PM FrankW_: jachym: It is a well understood non-profit model, we 
would be potntially able to get charity grants, and we would be able to 
issue tax receipts.
3:36:17 PM FrankW_: dmorissette: I agree, I am not yet confortable with 
model "C" though I'd still like to investigate it.
3:37:04 PM jachym: so "not clear status of owner ship" and "it sounds 
better to some stakeholders" right?
3:37:13 PM dmorissette: being in Canada really doesn't help me. For any 
question of this type I turn to experts… but I don't have nay to help me 
with US stuff. Would anyone in the US be able to help?
3:37:25 PM dmorissette: I mean any of the US board members?
3:37:38 PM FrankW_: We really do need better advice before taking really 
dramatic action.
3:37:47 PM dmorissette: +1^3
3:37:54 PM FrankW_: Perhaps dbb and I could chat with folks at the 
foundation center in SF.
3:38:10 PM jmckenna: you've done an excellent job daniel.  (I deleted my 
message earlier saying again we need professional advice.  we are 
software devs)
3:38:32 PM dbb: we have substantial resources in the Bay Area for this 
sort of thing, but the Open Source model is still new teritory
3:38:40 PM dbb: this is in fact, inventing the future
3:39:00 PM pmbatty: Andrew Ross from Eclipse mentioned to me that they 
have a lawyer on staff and he's be willing to set up a chat there - 
couldn't commit to detailed advice but they may have some useful input
3:39:34 PM dmorissette: FrankW_: That would be great if you could talk 
to that foundation center. We need experts to help… I spent more time on 
OSGeo treasurer stuff in the last year than in managing my own business… 
because I have access to experts that I pay to give me directions for my 
business
3:39:45 PM FrankW_: That could be helpful.  I note that Eclipse is a 
501(c)6 and apache is a 501(c)3.
3:40:13 PM FrankW_: It is unfortunate that the fellow who helped us file 
the 501(c)3 application didn't have broader advice.
3:40:29 PM FrankW_: *takes an action item to do some research.*
3:40:59 PM pmbatty: I also feel we probably need to hunt around a bit 
more for the right people to give us more definitive advice
3:41:05 PM dmorissette: FrankW_: talking about David Atkin, our current 
attorney? Was he really involved in the original stuff? I was under the 
impression that he was brought in to help after IRS sent a first round 
of questions
3:41:06 PM FrankW_: In the meantime, I'd like to suggest that we pursue 
the 501(c)3 application with some adjustments to our operations (ie. 
closing project sponsorship program) to comply with their rqeusts.
3:41:30 PM FrankW_: dmorissette: sorry, you are right - but still his 
letter of advise was not so helpful to me.
3:41:43 PM dmorissette: agreed that they are of very little help
phayes left the room. (3:41:45 PM)
3:42:00 PM jachym: FrankW_: shall we take this as motion?
3:42:25 PM dmorissette: working on motion...
3:42:31 PM FrankW_: *makes a motion to continue to pursue 501(c)3 status 
with an educational focus and adjusting programs as needed to comply. *
3:42:41 PM dmorissette: second
3:42:46 PM jachym: +1
3:42:48 PM mlucas: +1
3:42:51 PM CameronShorter: +1
3:42:52 PM aghisla: same for me, I would vote B now, but aim to reach 
option C in the future.
3:42:56 PM dmorissette: +1 noting that this is option B in the agenda
3:43:11 PM FrankW_: jmckenna?
3:43:22 PM FrankW_: pmbatty?
3:43:25 PM FrankW_: mpg?
3:43:26 PM pmbatty: +1
3:43:35 PM mpg: +1
3:43:36 PM jmckenna: I was assuming the motion would be to bring in 
assistance.  a conference all with all board members and an advisor. 
that said, my vote
3:43:41 PM jmckenna: +1
3:44:10 PM FrankW_: Well, there are lots of followons, but I feel like 
we need to provide direction to Daniel on the application before our 
next meeting.
3:44:15 PM FrankW_: Motion carried.
3:44:47 PM FrankW_: I'd also appreciate it if others can reach out to 
legal and non-profit resources for advice, do research, etc.
3:44:56 PM CameronShorter: +1
3:45:01 PM dmorissette: jmckenna:  my reasoning is that we continue in 
the same direction that we've been going in the last 6 years with 
respect to aiming for 501c3, with a slight adjustment that we drop the 
sponsorship program which is blocking it… if IRS approves us then fine, 
we try to comply, and if it's too hard we can always revisit in a few years
3:45:25 PM CameronShorter: I'm especially interested to reach out to 
Andrew Ross's offer of an Eclipse lawyer.
3:45:29 PM jachym: jmckenna: FrankW_ said: "  In the meantime, I'd like 
to suggest .... ", which I see in the direction, you proposed
3:45:35 PM jmckenna: thanks Daniel
3:46:09 PM FrankW_: CameronShorter: agreed - that could be quite helpful.
3:46:34 PM dmorissette: We should definitely continue to seek advice in 
parallel (from the SF foundation center, etc.), and adjust our direction 
accordingly if needed
3:46:36 PM jachym: *second*
3:47:00 PM jmckenna: good plan
3:47:03 PM CameronShorter: who has contacts with the SF foundation center?
3:47:04 PM FrankW_: OK, on to our next agenda item - LocationTech.  I 
think jmckenna added this.  Is there a particular request or just 
seeking a status report?
3:47:06 PM jachym: we already had conference call with andrew, another 
one would be nice
3:47:41 PM jmckenna: FrankW_ no particular request or issue.  I am just 
trying to learn how this relationship will function
3:47:48 PM dmorissette: ACTIONS: I'll be leading the response to the 
IRS… FrankW_ and dbb talk to the SF foundation center … anyone to talk 
to the Eclipse lawyer?
3:47:55 PM dbb: CameronShorter: my best contact there has unfortunately 
passed away.. one of the power brokers for this sort of thing here now 
works for the B+M Gates foundation itself
3:47:57 PM mpg: I could arrange to meet w/ someone in SF, if someone had 
enough contacts to set it up
3:48:07 PM pmbatty: I had a good chat with Andrew a week or so ago but 
haven't had a chance to write up notes from that
3:48:08 PM FrankW_: I'll initiate discussions with the Eclipse lawyer
3:48:16 PM dmorissette: thanks FrankW_
3:48:51 PM FrankW_: pmbatty: did we sign the agreement with them?  I'd 
like to produce an announcement about the relationship.
3:48:59 PM pmbatty: I will send an email to the board sometime in the 
next week or so, a bit too much stuff to easily summarize here
blk [~blk at 66.114.129.162] entered the room. (3:49:01 PM)
3:49:07 PM FrankW_: sounds reasonable
3:49:19 PM pmbatty: Haven't done all the paperwork yet I'm afraid
3:49:25 PM pmbatty: But will get that sorted too
3:49:27 PM FrankW_: ok, no problem.
3:49:28 PM jmckenna: true an announcement or white paper (the OSGeo vs 
OGC whilepaper was great) would help me understand this relationship
3:49:36 PM jachym: (brb)
3:49:53 PM FrankW_: I suspect the relationship will develop over time.
3:50:09 PM pmbatty: Jeff I think it's all pretty exploratory at the 
moment really
3:50:25 PM FrankW_: That's all our items for today.
3:50:37 PM CameronShorter: Next meeting?
3:50:39 PM mlucas: ahead of schedule
3:50:43 PM mpg: nice
3:50:51 PM FrankW_: I'd like to hold our next meeting December 13th 
before everyone is away for holidays if possible.
3:50:54 PM FrankW_: Is that reasonable?
3:50:58 PM mpg: sure
3:51:03 PM mlucas: sounds good here
3:51:12 PM FrankW_: Amoung other things we need to start work on a 
budget for next year.
3:51:15 PM jmckenna: good here
3:51:31 PM CameronShorter: fine, what time?
3:51:51 PM dmorissette: Dec 13 works for me… time?
3:51:52 PM CameronShorter: (This timeslot is my preference, unless 
others would prefer to rotate)
3:52:01 PM jachym: (back)
jachym_cellp left the room (quit: Read error: No route to host). 
(3:52:03 PM)
3:52:08 PM pmbatty: This time is good for me too
3:52:11 PM dmorissette: this timeslot is grest for anyone in NA
3:52:17 PM dmorissette: s/grest/great
3:52:22 PM FrankW_: This time is great for me.  I'd love to stick with it.
3:52:47 PM CameronShorter: Europe?
3:52:49 PM jmckenna: maybe not so great for europe
3:52:56 PM jmckenna: i think rotation is fair
3:52:58 PM mpg: good for Seattle and Boise, my two homes
3:53:19 PM FrankW_: OK, so next meeting 20UTC on Thursday december 13th.
3:53:33 PM FrankW_: I assume it is circa 9pm in middle europe?  Not so 
bad I hope.
3:53:44 PM aghisla: it's fine for me.
3:53:44 PM FrankW_: I'd like to avoid 5am time slots.
3:53:59 PM aghisla: who actually likes them? 
3:54:08 PM FrankW_: ok next meeting settled.  We can revisit time slots 
in the future if need be.
3:54:21 PM FrankW_: thanks everyone! and happy post-gis day. 
3:54:25 PM mpg: move to adjuourn
3:54:29 PM jachym: I should make it (maybe delay, but cellphone could 
solve it)
3:54:36 PM FrankW_: +1
3:54:37 PM dmorissette: +1
3:54:42 PM CameronShorter: I can actually make 30 mins earlier, if that 
is easier for Europe?
3:54:44 PM jmckenna: +1 thanks frank
3:54:54 PM CameronShorter: +1
3:55:00 PM aghisla: +1
3:55:04 PM jachym: +1
mpg left the room (quit: Quit: ttfn). (3:55:19 PM)
3:56:08 PM aghisla: CameronShorter: no worries, 9pm is ok
3:56:19 PM FrankW_: *cogitates on how activities like OSGeo Live, code 
sprints, and fixing software supports our educational mission.*
3:57:22 PM dmorissette: code sprint is knowledge sharing between 
developers for the advancement of (software) science, resolution of new 
probles, … that is educational
3:58:02 PM dmorissette: OSGeo Live is used/required for FOSS4G workshop… 
one of our core educational activities
3:58:56 PM dmorissette: software support… well… I have no answer
3:59:28 PM jmckenna: how will GDAL project manage the sponsorship itself?
3:59:49 PM FrankW_: fixing bugs is necessary to ensure the software 
works properly in the workshops!
3:59:55 PM dmorissette: true
4:00:15 PM FrankW_: jmckenna: for the time being we will restrict 
ourselves to spending project funds on things we can provide some 
educational justification for.
4:00:20 PM jmckenna: interesting how it all comes back to 
workshops...really the best part of FOSS4G 
4:00:26 PM FrankW_: 
4:00:58 PM jmckenna: FrankW_ also bank accounts...that level of manage i 
meant
4:01:07 PM jmckenna: doesn't that get hairy?
4:02:03 PM dmorissette: jmckenna:  I think FrankW_ suggested that we 
just continue to spend whatever money has already been accumulated, but 
do not seek new   project sponsors or renew existing ones
4:02:16 PM jmckenna: ah ok i see, sorry
4:02:54 PM jmckenna: then how do old GDAL "sponsors" continue.....i 
guess i am still confused
4:04:27 PM jmckenna: i like project sponsorship because it helps growth
4:04:57 PM dmorissette: for the future they'd have to contract directly 
with devs I guess… but to be honest there re not that many left since 
nobody has been going after them for renewal
phayes [~anonymous at hw-phayes-lt.Stanford.EDU] entered the room. (4:05:08 PM)
4:05:16 PM jmckenna: ok, i see...kind of MapServer model i guess
4:05:19 PM dmorissette: only one GDAL sponsor has renewed in the last year
4:05:26 PM jmckenna: oh ok