[Theforum] monies?

martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com
Thu May 23 08:41:22 CDT 2002


Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------




Martin wrote:


> Something like
> http://freezope2.nipltd.net/acorn/evolt/EthicsCode
> as a start?

>i have some questions, is this referring to personal sponsors or
>corporate sponsors? (i for one, would like to avoid getting companies
>into our org, if possible, altough i recognize that it could be very
>helpful)

Both I think, with the intent that it could cover situations where
corporates have employees/directors/shareholders who are members (which is
pretty insightful on Dean(?)'s part)

>i think that including sponsorship from companies would require some
>more extensive and strict rules like:

I think there's 2 levels of this. The absolute top level is that sponsors
can and will only get what's agreed, and that's published for anyone to
see. The second internal policy is exactly what whoever's handling the
negotiations from our side is able to offer:
1) without refering back to the SC or this group
2) at all

This is the negotiator's operating parameters which shouldn't be disclosed
to potential sponsors (hmm - interesting dilemma with open lists)

>- forbidding banners and listing their involvmente only in a 'sponsors'
>page for such purpose

So one option mentioned before (and this is only an example) is adding an
acknowledgement to the footer of list emails. One possible (and I'm not
saying we should or shouldn't, this is example only) approach would be that

a) whoever's negotiating could offer a mention on the sponsor's page
without refering back

b) if the potential sponsor asked for an acknowledgement (eg "powered with
the support of glasshaus publishing") on list emails, the negotiator could
refer this back as a possibility, and then the SC could think about the
impact of this, the reputation of the sponsor, the exact wording and so on,
and reach a decision

c) if the potential sponsor asked for an advert (eg "Buy glasshaus
publishing's groundbreaking 'Accessible Web Sites', only $49.99! Buy one,
get $10 off 'Usable Web sites') on a list footer, then the negotiator would
have to automatically decline.

So yeah, we need to think through our internal parameters about the
boundary of acceptability. There's a whole world of difference between
"Powered by <sponsor logo>" (similar to the footer of the Wiki, but with
the logo of the people who financially supported the service, rather than
the software which runs it), and
http://images.slashdot.org/banner/sfos2013en.gif

>- stating that sponsors do not gain any copyright on the content
>submitted by members in any form

We couldn't offer this anyway at present, as the rights belong to the
members individually. And I think keeping that is a non-negotiable, and
part of the publically available information for sponsors.

>- stating that sponsorship does not imply any right of decision in the
direction (or steering of evolt.org), which will remain a subject of
theforum only
Or indeed for *any* evolt.org policy (strategic or operational).

>and i think we'd need a proper organization set up before going that way

This bit for sure, so that anyone negotiating on behalf of evolt.org really
can sign deals on evolt's behalf (legal background - organisations can be
legal persons which can enter into contracts. Groups of individuals find
that *much* harder. In the UK btw you don't need to be a recognised charity
(equiv to an NFP) to be an organisation - example
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/ is not a registered charity)

>we can't deal with a huge corporation if we don't have a real structure
>in place, we'd be in a very risky disadvantage, we've all seen small
>groups benn eaten by corps, and it's also related to how we started.

You're probably right.

Cheers
Martin


--------------------- End of message text --------------------

This e-mail is sent by the above named in their
individual, non-business capacity and is not on
behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming
e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and
telecommunications systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.




More information about the theforum mailing list