doc: use of OpenCollective and GitHub sponsors #1658
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
|
@aduh95 I think you suggested we should document how the funds would be collected and managed as a first step in the discussions on funding. This is my first cut at a simple process that we can expand on over time. |
Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| Potential disbursements will be agreed through TSC discussion | ||
| and before approval, documented in an PR in the | ||
| [TSC repository](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC) which adds |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should it be the admin repo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We already have the similar doc for the bug bounty fund in the TSC repo so I've added them here to be consistent. Havingf said that I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t know how consistent we are with this, my understanding is that nodejs/TSC would be for stuff internal to the TSC, so folks who are not TSC members can safely unsubscribe from that repo without missing any info relevant to them.
|
In the CPC working session this morning myself @mhdawson Robin and Joe discussed the various fees one incurs with OpenCollective. We also reviewed the Linux Foundation (LF) General & Administrative (G&A) fee, which we wanted to highlight here for transparency. If you choose to have OpenJS receive sponsorship dollars and manage contractor payments, the LF G&A fee will apply. This fee is structured as follows:
Based on expected OpenJS’s annual revenue, we typically use an estimated 7.5% as the effective G&A fee for planning purposes. |
Co-authored-by: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
|
@nodejs/tsc it would be great to get more people either adding their +1s or joining the conversation. Want to be sure we have consensus with the approach outlined. |
|
@aduh95 are you ok if these land here and then we decide in another PR to move all three to the admin repo ? |
|
@nodejs/tsc will mention in the meeting tomorrow and if there are no objections during the meeting or in the issue before then will assume its approved. In terms of the fees mentioned by @bensternthal seems like we are likely going to have some entity to act as a fiscal host and many of those charge fees which are +- a few percent from 7.5%. |
|
Mentioned again in the meeting today, no objections so landing. |
No description provided.