[KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
J. Trent Adams
All -
As a reminder, we have our Leadership Council call tomorrow:
* Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010
* Time: 9am PST | 12pm EST | 17:00 UTC [1]
* Teleconference Options:
o Skype: +9900827043671716
o US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716
I've updated the wiki with this week's dynamic agenda:
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/bAFyAg
As you'll notice, this week's WG update will be on eGov presented by Colin.
Here's the agenda snapshot:
1. Roll Call for Quorum Determination
2. Approval of prior meeting minutes
a. Review: Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-01-20 [2]
3. Announce: Executive Director Transition Plan
4. Proposed WG: Interoperability Work Group (IOPWG)
a. Review: IOPWG Charter [3]
b. Discuss & set date for vote
5. Discuss: LC Support for WG/DG Evangelism
a. Review:
http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/2010-January/000796.html
b. Review:
http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/2010-January/000799.html
6. Update: Kantara Conference - Oregon- March 9-11, 2010
a. Preliminary LC Attendance
b. Agenda items fleshed out deadline was Feb. 1 [4]
c. Early bird registration ends Feb. 12 [5]
d. Sleeping room block deadline at Springhill Suites - Feb. 9 [6]
7. AOB
8. WG/DG Update: eGov WG (Colin)
See you then.
- Trent
[1] Time Chart:
http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=2&day=3&year=2010&hour=17&min=0&sec=0&p1=0&sort=2
[2]
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Leadership+Council+Teleconference+-+2010-01-20
[3] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/iopwg/Charter
[4]
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/Kantara+Initiative+Conferences
[5] http://www.regonline.com/kantara_initiative_conference
[6]
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/37750717/Kantara+Group+Hotel+Rate+Flyer+March+2010.pdf
--
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams
Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org
e) ad...@isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149
_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
Bob Pinheiro
for individual WGs/DGs. Right now, each WG/DG must depend on the
Kantara organization for funding. Yet the amount of funding available
to a given WG/DG is subject to a number of constraints, among those
being: (a) overall availability of funds, (b) requirement that the work
must be done by volunteer participants, unless no volunteers are
available and the work is deemed by the LC/BoT to be of sufficient
importance/priority to merit funding. Part of the issue here is that
volunteer participants will only be able to contribute their time and
expertise if their employer deems it in the employer's interest to do
so. Of course there are instances where dedicated volunteers may
contribute their own time to WG activities, but that is the exception
rather than the rule. It is also true that many participants who join
the various WGs do so with the intent of being observers rather than
active participants.
The end result is that the activities that can be realistically pursued
by WGs/DGs are limited by the availability of volunteer participants as
well as limitations on funding to seek other resources to help do the
work This situation will likely become more acute as the number of
WGs/DG increases.
I believe that WGs/DGs ought to be able to seek funding for their
activities directly from Kantara members, or other organizations outside
of Kantara (including governmental entities), and that this funding
should be earmarked specifically for the WG/DG to be spent as deemed
appropriate by the Chair, with approval from the funders. I'm not aware
that Kantara presently has a policy to allow this to happen. I'm
proposing that such a policy be developed.
Now I'm not under any illusions here that the existence of such a policy
would suddenly result in funds being available to the Consumer Identity
WG. There is still the issue of going out and soliciting funding,
demonstrating to potential funders the value of the proposed work, as
well as the challenge of demonstrating why the work should be done under
the Kantara umbrella. And of course the potential funders themselves
will have their own budget constraints.
But I'd like to see Kantara come up with a policy on this. So I'm bring
up this issue now, and proposing that the LC recommend to the BoT that
it develop a policy on WG/DG funding from non-Kantara sources. This may
be a topic that should be more fully discussed at the F2F meeting in March.
Bob
---------------------------
Bob Pinheiro
Chair, Consumer Identity WG
908-654-1939
kan...@bobpinheiro.com
www.bobpinheiro.com
On 2/2/2010 7:16 PM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
> All -
>
> As a reminder, we have our Leadership Council call tomorrow:
>
> * Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010
> * Time: 9am PST | 12pm EST | 17:00 UTC [1]
> * Teleconference Options:
> o Skype: +9900827043671716
> o US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716
>
> I've updated the wiki with this week's dynamic agenda:
>
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/bAFyAg
>
> As you'll notice, this week's WG update will be on eGov presented by Colin.
>
> Here's the agenda snapshot:
>
> 1. Roll Call for Quorum Determination
> 2. Approval of prior meeting minutes
> a. Review: Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-01-20 [2]
> 3. Announce: Executive Director Transition Plan
> 4. Proposed WG: Interoperability Work Group (IOPWG)
> a. Review: IOPWG Charter [3]
> b. Discuss& set date for vote
> 5. Discuss: LC Support for WG/DG Evangelism
> a. Review:
> http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/2010-January/000796.html
> b. Review:
> http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/2010-January/000799.html
> 6. Update: Kantara Conference - Oregon- March 9-11, 2010
> a. Preliminary LC Attendance
> b. Agenda items fleshed out deadline was Feb. 1 [4]
> c. Early bird registration ends Feb. 12 [5]
> d. Sleeping room block deadline at Springhill Suites - Feb. 9 [6]
> 7. AOB
> 8. WG/DG Update: eGov WG (Colin)
>
> See you then.
>
> - Trent
>
> [1] Time Chart:
> http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=2&day=3&year=2010&hour=17&min=0&sec=0&p1=0&sort=2
> [2]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Leadership+Council+Teleconference+-+2010-01-20
> [3]http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/iopwg/Charter
> [4]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/Kantara+Initiative+Conferences
> [5]http://www.regonline.com/kantara_initiative_conference
> [6]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/37750717/Kantara+Group+Hotel+Rate+Flyer+March+2010.pdf
>
>
Joe Andrieu
I asked about this at the DIDW meetings and was told quite explicitly
that there is no reason a WG can't raise funds, either from activities
or through sponsorship.
However, I agree it would be good to have some guidance and policy as to
how that would work and what kinds of fundraising are not appropriate
and how one would seek approval if the appropriateness is in question.
-j
--
Joe Andrieu
j...@switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651
http://www.switchbook.com
Roger Sullivan
This type of project/program funding was explicitly talked about during the formation of Kantara. It was not resolved at that time, but simply tabled for later. I'm glad that 'later' is now.
Regards,
Roger S.
Cahill, Conor P
I have a real problem when cash is provided to a Kantara entity and that same cash does not go through our treasurer. I believe that many others had similar concerns.
Conor
Bob Pinheiro
treasurer, only that the funding be specifically earmarked for the WG
that raised it, and spent in accordance with whatever agreement is
necessary between the funder and the WG.
Bob
Cahill, Conor P
Conor
Colin Wallis
(f) The funding model (if any) for the Member Section - Member Sections optionally may propose in their ROP that a portion of dues paid by Member Section Supporting Entities be available as Member Section Funds. The uses and expenditures of such funds must be in accordance with the rules prescribed in this Policy. If dues allocation is proposed for this Member Section, the proposers of the Member Section must provide a budget and work with OASIS Staff to create an analysis of the financial impact of dues allocation on the OASIS general fund in advance of the OASIS Board's approval of the ROP, in order to help the OASIS Board make an informed decision. Further, the Member Section must have an approved annual budget that shows how Member Section Funds collected from all sources are used to further Member Section goals.
Member Section Funds come from a variety of sources such as:
a percentage of the income from OASIS membership dues paid by the Member Section Supporting Entities, allocated over the term of the membership;
a percentage of the income from OASIS sponsorship fees for sponsoring the Member Section website, allocated over the term of the membership;
grants of funds from OASIS Members or other funding sources for work that is in alignment with the scope of that Member Section;
revenue from events conducted by the Member Section; and
(in the case of acquisition of another organization by OASIS) any funds it may have previously held as a separate organization.
In those Member Sections that accept dues allocations, Member Section Supporting Entities will have a portion of their OASIS Membership dues allocated to the Member Section as described above.
Food for thought?
Cheers
Colin
Conor
Bob
====
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====
Bob Pinheiro
------------------------------------------------------
One difference I see between the OASIS model and the Kantara situation is that the OASIS Member Section Supporting Entities (corresponding to WG participants?) are apparently dues-paying members of OASIS, whereas WG/DG participants are not necessarily dues-paying members of Kantara. So in the OASIS case, redirecting these member dues to support a specific Member Section (corresponding to a specific WG/DG?) means less funding for other OASIS activities. Hence the need for an analysis of the financial impact of doing this, etc. Further, the OASIS Member Section must apparently have funding coming from several sources. That does not now apply to Kantara WGs/DGs. So I'm not sure how relevant the OASIS model is. I'm specifically proposing that WGs/DGs should be able to solicit additional funding from anyone (participant organizations, other Kantara members, governmental entities, Bill Gates/Warren Buffet, or any other entity), and that any funds raised in this way be specifically earmarked for use by that WG/DG in accordance with any agreement between the WG/DG and the funding entity for how the funds are to be used.
It's OK if the funding goes through the Kantara treasurer, and is then doled out to the specific WG/DG, provided that the Kantara treasurer cannot divert such funds for other "higher priority" purposes. I would also expect that Kantara might take a small (emphasis on small) chunk of these funds to support administrative functions.
In response to Conor's concern about doing "what's right" for Kantara as a whole, versus what's right for a specific WG/DG, I'd argue that it's in Kantara's best interest to see all of its WGs/DGs be successful. So to the extent that additional funding is needed to enable a WG/DG to be successful, and this funding can be raised from outside sources, that is in Kantara's best interest.
Bob
Cahill, Conor P
I think when a WG is going around actively raising money, that WG is getting close to being a new organization.
Kantara *does* have a funding model that *is* based on membership fees and which can, if I remember correctly, include directed membership funds. Kantara also allows (has no restrictions against) allowing companies to provide in-kind support for a working group (providing a bridge for calls, providing people to do work, etc.).
I’m not convinced that we also need or want a model where working groups are going out asking for funding (probably from the same companies that Kantara would be wanting to be members of the organization). I’m also worried that this somehow is being used to hide how a company actually is spending its own money (e.g. Joe Schmoe at MyCompany.Org wants to pay for consulting services from a particular provider for some WG, but his company has a restriction that requires consulting $$ to be spent at a particular provider that Joe doesn’t want to make use of, so Joe tells his company that he’s going to contribute the money to Kantara who then directs it to the consultant that Joe wants to hire).
I would like to see some real examples where a WG requires funding that a) isn’t being provided by Kantara and b) wouldn’t be satisfied by the in-kind contribution model.
Conor
Bob Pinheiro
It's also true that when a new WG is formed, there is no prerequisite that there are sufficient bodies willing and able to commit their time and energy to do the planned work. The hope is that such resources will be available, but it's not a given. May I also point out that not everyone who may want to participate in WG activities are corporate employees who are getting paid to participate. It's easier to attract independents if you can pay them for their efforts. So it's entirely reasonable that there will be situations in which WGs are formed, and there will be insufficient volunteer participants to actively do the work. In many cases, participants are interested in simply being observers. And I'm not just talking about the availability of human resources, I'm also talking about other things such as obtaining a research report that costs money, or conducting a survey (as I believe the Information Sharing WG is doing, through an outside consultant). Those are only a few examples.
So all I'm saying is that the mere formation of a WG does not guarantee that sufficient resources will be available to do the work that is planned, and that there is no commitment by Kantara to provide financial or other support (other than what I've indicated above). You could argue that if resources aren't available, the WG should be disbanded or the work should be scaled back. I say that WGs should first be able to solicit funding from outside sources, and it should be possible to earmark those funds specifically for that WG. Now that may turn out to be a steep hill to climb, and I'm not saying it would be easy, or that I would even attempt it. Although I might. But that is an option that I believe should be on the table, and I think Kantara should have a mechanism for handling it.
Bob
Cahill, Conor P
I know what you’re saying. I’m saying that Kantara shouldn’t be in the business of funding workgroup projects. Kantara is in the business of bringing people together who want to *WORK* on common interest projects. It’s not a place for someone to say “hey, I’ve got an idea, let me see if I can get the organization to fund it for me.”
Any direct funding of work by Kantara should be the *exception* to the rule rather than the rule.
If a WG or a member of a WG wants to get some other organization to fund their work within the WG, they can do so as a direct relationship without involving Kantara. This has been done in the past in many standards bodies including Liberty and I presume Kantara. So if I wanted, say Microsoft, to fund development of some open source implementation of the advanced client specs, I could go directly to Microsoft and ask them to fund the work directly with whomever would do the work – no need to involve Kantara as a middle man.
I see no justification in any of this discussion as to why Kantara has to be in the middle and I do see it as a potential means of hiding conflicts of interest that would be very detrimental to the reputation to the organization should such a case come to actually happen.
So, why can’t the outside company just fund the work in a direct relationship with the provider?
Joe Andrieu
The reason to work with Kantara as a "middle man", as you put it, is
precisely because Kantara is the organization within which the group has
chosen to coordinate their efforts.
If Kantara can't provide this kind of support, then I will have to
revisit my understanding of the value Kantara brings to independent
projects looking for organizational infrastructure.
The point isn't that work groups are coming to Kantara to get funding.
It's that groups doing interesting work often need an organization to
help deal with IPR, liability, and operational support. Once that group
decides an organization is a good thing, they either have to create
their own or join one. I was quite explicitly told that Kantara's
mission is to be precisely the sort of "umbrella" organization for
supporting collaborative work by largely independent teams of
volunteers. If Kantara can't provide the liability and treasury related
functions to support alternative sources of funding, it would be a
significant breakdown in communication and an undermining of the reason
I supported bringing my own work here.
I agree with you that Kantara is not the place people should come
looking for handouts. Indeed, work groups should not /expect/ funding.
And when they don't get funding from for what they want to do, it is
entirely appropriate that they find other ways to get that funding, if
they have the will and resources to do so.
Ironically, if a work group is not allowed to bring in outside funding,
then the only option you've left them is to ask for handouts. A cynic
would say that this is precisely the power dynamic that the BoT would
prefer. I'm not that cynical, but I do know that this is one reason many
people questioned the decision making structure at the formation of the
organization.
-j
On 2/4/2010 3:50 AM, Cahill, Conor P wrote:
> I know what you’re saying. I’m saying that Kantara shouldn’t be in the
> business of funding workgroup projects. Kantara is in the business of
> bringing people together who want to **WORK** on common interest
> projects. It’s not a place for someone to say “hey, I’ve got an idea,
> let me see if I can get the organization to fund it for me.”
>
> Any direct funding of work by Kantara should be the **exception** to the
> rule rather than the rule.
>
> If a WG or a member of a WG wants to get some other organization to fund
> their work within the WG, they can do so as a direct relationship
> without involving Kantara. This has been done in the past in many
> standards bodies including Liberty and I presume Kantara. So if I
> wanted, say Microsoft, to fund development of some open source
> implementation of the advanced client specs, I could go directly to
> Microsoft and ask them to fund the work directly with whomever would do
> the work – no need to involve Kantara as a middle man.
>
> I see no justification in any of this discussion as to why Kantara has
> to be in the middle and I do see it as a potential means of hiding
> conflicts of interest that would be very detrimental to the reputation
> to the organization should such a case come to actually happen.
>
> So, why can’t the outside company just fund the work in a direct
> relationship with the provider?
>
> Conor
>
> *From:* lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org
> [mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Pinheiro
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:12 PM
> *Cc:* l...@kantarainitiative.org
> *Subject:* Re: [KI-LC] WG/DG Funding Discussion
> Kantara **does** have a funding model that **is** based on membership
> fees and which can, if I remember correctly, include directed membership
> funds. Kantara also allows (has no restrictions against) allowing
> companies to provide in-kind support for a working group (providing a
> bridge for calls, providing people to do work, etc.).
>
> I’m not convinced that we also need or want a model where working groups
> are going out asking for funding (probably from the same companies that
> Kantara would be wanting to be members of the organization). I’m also
> worried that this somehow is being used to hide how a company actually
> is spending its own money (e.g. Joe Schmoe at MyCompany.Org wants to pay
> for consulting services from a particular provider for some WG, but his
> company has a restriction that requires consulting $$ to be spent at a
> particular provider that Joe doesn’t want to make use of, so Joe tells
> his company that he’s going to contribute the money to Kantara who then
> directs it to the consultant that Joe wants to hire).
>
> I would like to see some real examples where a WG requires funding that
> a) isn’t being provided by Kantara and b) wouldn’t be satisfied by the
> in-kind contribution model.
>
> Conor
>
> *From:* lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org
> <mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org>
> [mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Pinheiro
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:09 PM
> *To:* l...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:l...@kantarainitiative.org>
> *Subject:* [KI-LC] WG/DG Funding Discussion
> From:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org> [mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Conor P
>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 5:53 a.m.
>
> To: Bob Pinheiro
>
> Cc: Roger Sullivan;l...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:l...@kantarainitiative.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
>
>
>
> I still think we have to walk a very fine line here between doing what's right for the organization as a whole and doing what's right for a particular group. I can see a lot of potential (real and perceived) conflict of interest when *Kantara* representatives (members of a Kantara group) try to raise money in the name of Kantara, but for a particular group within Kantara.
>
>
>
> Conor
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Bob Pinheiro [mailto:kan...@bobpinheiro.com]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:03 AM
>
> To: Cahill, Conor P
>
> Cc: Roger Sullivan;j...@switchbook.com <mailto:j...@switchbook.com>;l...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:l...@kantarainitiative.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
>
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that the funding not go through the Kantara
>
> treasurer, only that the funding be specifically earmarked for the WG
>
> that raised it, and spent in accordance with whatever agreement is
>
> necessary between the funder and the WG.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On 2/3/2010 10:50 AM, Cahill, Conor P wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that in-kind donations of materials/sponsorship (e.g. paying for a conference booth) and such is fine.
>
>
>
> I have a real problem when cash is provided to a Kantara entity and that same cash does not go through our treasurer. I believe that many others had similar concerns.
>
>
>
> Conor
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org> [mailto:lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Roger Sullivan
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:46 AM
>
> To:j...@switchbook.com <mailto:j...@switchbook.com>; Bob Pinheiro
>
> Cc:l...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:l...@kantarainitiative.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
>
>
>
> I would encourage this discussion to flesh out the policies - especially with regard to (in)appropriate solicitation and application of funds received.
>
>
>
> This type of project/program funding was explicitly talked about during the formation of Kantara. It was not resolved at that time, but simply tabled for later. I'm glad that 'later' is now.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Roger S.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Joe Andrieu [mailto:j...@switchbook.com]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:32 AM
>
> To: Bob Pinheiro
>
> Cc:l...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:l...@kantarainitiative.org>
> kan...@bobpinheiro.com <mailto:kan...@bobpinheiro.com>
>
> www.bobpinheiro.com <http://www.bobpinheiro.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> L...@kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
--
Brett McDowell
As you know, better than anyone (given the annual budget process we
went through a few months ago), Kantara Initiative absolutely does
fund projects proposed by WG's. It's a core tenet of the
organization. And, as has been demonstrated already, Kantara works
with external funding sources as well (ISOC as co-funder of the
Information Sharing WG's research projects is one example). So...
(a) I don't understand why this is portrayed as an open issue/question
(b) if there is something still open-ended or misunderstood, I don't
understand why it's being debated on LC as this is clearly part of the
fiduciary responsibility of the Board of Trustees and therefore I'd
expect any open question in this regard be directed to them.
-- Brett
Cahill, Conor P
You don't appear to respond to my question: What is the justification in
support of requiring the funds to go through Kantara vs the outside funding organization funding the work directly?
If Company X wants to pay for some work, they can pay for the work directly.
If Company X wants to find someone else to pay them to do the work, they can do that directly as well.
Why does Company X want to pay Kantara to pay for some work indirectly?
Conor
Conor,
-j
> the work - no need to involve Kantara as a middle man.
Joe Andrieu
Direct contributions from a sponsor to an individual create a mess of
liability and operational issues for the recipient: contracts,
invoicing, payments, distributions, disputes, IP issues. These issues
also create potential headache for the sponsor, who has to make a
judgment call about the individuals' ability to handle the overhead and
the financial controls in place to assure the funds go to the proposed
activity. All of these things can and do prevent individuals from
taking funds for volunteer work that will largely be done by other people.
This is one of the fundamental reasons individuals form organizations in
the first place. And why I would expect it to be a no brainer for
Kantara to take care of it.
-j
Cahill, Conor P
work being performed) is worried about accepting funds from a company
because of the liability, disputes, payments, invoicing, etc. and
somehow, when you place Kantara in the loop these concerns go away?
How exactly does that happen? Why don't these same issues with respect
to liability, disputes, payments, invoicing, etc. now occur twice: once
between Kantara and the contributor and once between consultant and
Kantara?
Joe Andrieu
Why would a sponsor give money directly to any individual when what they
want to do is sponsor a work group or a work group activity?
I'm certainly not going to take money personally for work that my group
or someone in my group wants to do. Nor do I want a sponsor to have to
make an independent evaluation of the potential multiple contracts that
may be involved in various parties contributing to a funded project.
For example, if we wanted to run a workshop that Kantara, as an
organization, didn't have the resources to facilitate, I'd like to raise
sponsorship dollars to fund it. The sponsor doesn't want to negotiate
terms, sign contracts, manage, and directly pay the caterer, the
facility, the conference planner, the DJ, the AV team, etc. They want
to write a reasonable check and be done with it. That check should go to
Kantara to be spent at the discretion of the work group.
The same issues don't come up because they are backstopped by a trusted
entity, the organization. Rather than giving directly to volunteers at a
church, one gives to the church. Rather than giving directly to a
particular volunteer at the Red Cross, one gives to the Red Cross
directly. And as the volunteer, I don't have to deal with accounting for
the income, dealing with fiscal liability, or potential accusations of
inappropriate use of funds, because I too am benefiting from a trusted
organization to organize the activity. That's what organizations do.
There must be something I'm missing in your objection, Conor. Could you
unpack that a bit more for us?
-j
Cahill, Conor P
was with the recipient of the funds. Now you're saying it's with the
contributor of the funds?
Is this your final answer now?
I do *know* of several cases where sponsors *have* sponsored work within
a working group by paying for someone to do the work on their behalf. There
are many reasons for a sponsor to want to do things this way, the biggest
being they get to ensure that their concerns are at least raised, if not
addressed by the work of the WG.
When I was a consultant, I had no problems taking money from people to
do work for them (though that usually also brought along the baggage of
me telling them what the "right" work that should be done was :-)).
As far as workshops are concerned, Kantara already supports the model you're
describing. For example, the RSA workshop is a workshop that is organized
by Kantara, but funded (at least partially) by sponsors. That kind of a
think is directly in line with what Kantara does (the administrative assistance
for organizing a workshop).
Roger Sullivan
1. How does Kantara accept funds - other than dues - that are designated for a particular project/program?
2. To whom, and under what circumstances may those funds be paid?
RS
Bob Pinheiro
Bob