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

[Marco Bernasocchi]

Forgot to add the psc address.

cheers All

Marco



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Qgis-psc] Discussion around changing sponsors to members
in QGIS.ORG
Date: 	Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:17:18 +0100
From: 	Marco Bernasocchi <marco at qgis.org>
To: 	Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net>



Hi Andreas, thanks for picking up this subject. I very much recognise
the discussion we had in Zanzibar and I think this would be a good Idea.

I think calling them supporting members could be good but I'm not sure
if we couldn't come up with a better name that makes immediately clear
that i is a non voting position.

Would you suggest removing completely the sponsors notion or have booth?

Cheers
Marco

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, 22:03 Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net
<mailto:a.neumann at carto.net> wrote:

    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 <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


On 21 Nov 2018 22:03, "Andreas Neumann" <a.neumann at carto.net
<mailto:a.neumann at carto.net>> wrote:

    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 <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20181123/2fa95706/attachment.html>