[Qgis-psc] Discussion around changing sponsors to members in QGIS.ORG

[Paolo Cavallini]

It seems a good idea to me.
Can we discuss it on the next PSC meeting, or you have reasons to hurry up?
Thanks.

Il 21 novembre 2018 22:02:58 CET, Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net> ha scritto:
>Dear PSC (and active contributors),
>
>I would like to discuss if we could change our statutes again (sorry 
>about that - and of course only if you agree - we can vote on it).
>
>The idea is to change our current sponsorships we have to a membership 
>in the future. As it is now it would be purely voluntary - and they 
>wouldn't have voting rights. We could call them "sustaining members" or
>
>"supporting members" and we could still keep different membership 
>categories. Instead of calling them gold/silver/bronze, we would could 
>them something like small (the current bronze), normal (the current 
>silver), large (the current gold) - or something similar (perhaps you 
>have better ideas about the naming) - just to make sure it is not a 
>sponsorship anymore - and gold/silver/bronze is quite attached to 
>sponsorships.
>
>Why would I suggest such a change?
>
>* There is a good chance that our sponsorship payments will reach a 
>limit (150k CHF = approx. 130k €), if we would surpass that limit, then
>
>we would have to charge VAT on the sponsorship payments
>
>* on the other hand membership fees of an association are not subject
>to VAT
>
>* a membership could be easier for public authorities to pay, instead
>of 
>a sponsorship
>
>* Maybe organizations are more likely to renew a membership fee than a 
>sponsorship (maybe more commitment) - but not sure about that.
>
>* we would still have a public listing of sustaining members (with
>their 
>logos, website and location), but we wouldn't call them sponsors
>anymore
>
>* Members are welcome to add a donation on top of the membership fee. 
>This would be similar to now. Some bronze sponsors maybe voluntarily
>pay 
>1500 instead of 500, but are still listed as bronze, until they would 
>surpass the threshold of the next level.
>
>We can discuss or think about if we can give such sustaining/supporting
>
>members some additional benefits (which would help attract more of
>them) 
>- e.g. a small member could name 2 bugs that get prioritized during bug
>
>fixing time, for normal it would be 5 and for large some maybe 10. Or 
>maybe you would have some other ideas about benefits for such members 
>instead. I think they shouldn't have voting rights - that should stay 
>with the current voting members (the active contributors, user groups 
>and developers).
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Greetings,
>
>Andreas
>
>_______________________________________________
>Qgis-psc mailing list
>Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

-- 
Sorry for being short
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20181121/600af41c/attachment.html>