On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:41:17AM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > You certainly can have too much money; frankly, I'm surprised that anyone on > > the team would suggest otherwise. > > The simplest provable definition of "too much money" is if the conference > > has become so tainted by corporate messaging in exchange for that money, > > that we no longer have enough Debian folks interested enough to come to the > > conference to use up our travel sponsorship budget. > > I don't say that this is the case with the current plan, but I think it /is/ > > important to recognize that being too "successful" at fundraising does > > actually represent an existential danger to DebConf. > You seem to be mixing up "having a lot of money" and "selling out". > They can be correlated, agreed. > Yet, in the context of what madduck said, I read this as a "making > more money is better" and I agree with that sentiment. Except that the proposal is precisely to make more money by giving sponsors more, not just by getting more money for the same benefits as before. We should not subscribe to a blind policy of doing this. > > For clarification: does the fact that these expenses are not tax-exempt pose > > problems for the non-profit status of the organization as a whole? Or does > > it "just" mean additional tax paperwork / tax to be paid? > IANAL, but from what we gathered it's the former. Ok. And how about if SPI pays these expenses? Since they are legitimate expenses for a US non-profit, this doesn't impact SPI's tax-exempt status. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature