On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Joseph Long <jl...@stsci.edu> wrote: > Hi Erik, > > It's a matter of both stated mission and the way the organization is, > well, organized. A corporation has an obligation to produce money for its > owners (which could be individuals or many shareholders) by charging money > to customers and minimizing the costs of delivering what customers want. > The difference between the costs of providing what the customers want and > the price they are willing to pay is the profit, which is returned to the > owners or shareholders.
Yes. > In the context of Software Carpentry, it is in any company's best > interests not to pay for things they could get for free. (Or to part with > money they don't have to.) A cheaper training course means more money in > the owner's pocket. Maybe. Depending on the size of the company it may be completely negligible, or it may be significant. It's because of the latter case that I'm glad this proposal still includes a case-by-case consideration (although it's not entirely clear on what basis that would be determined). > In contrast, for a non-profit organization, a cheaper training course > means more money to pursue their stated mission: the promotion of science, > education of students, study of public health, or what have you. Not only > are they more *likely* to spend the money they saved on their stated > mission, they are legally required to as a consequence of their > organization and tax classification. Generally I agree, though I don't feel completely comfortable in this case privileging good science done for profit over not. That's in contrast to my personal views that science should always be done for the sake of it. But in teaching SWC workshops my goal has always been to reach individual scientists and hopefully make it just a tiny bit easier for them to do *their* jobs; it's irrelevant who they're working for. Then again, if it's a matter of who's paying and what they're getting out of it I can see the other side, and so I think this proposal is reasonable. At the same time I have misgivings, and I don't think I'll personally be participating in any workshops in which we've charged more than the standard administrative fee. > It is my view, and evidently that of the steering committee as well, that > it is worthwhile to provide a discount to organizations whose mission is > producing work in the public interest, rather than money for shareholders. Again, I think that's a value judgment that I want no part in. > I'm somewhat confused why you think JHU and Harvard are operated > for-profit. They use money from donations and investments to produce > students, research, events, etc., but their decisions are ultimately not > driven by a need to maximize profits for an owner or owners. Perhaps, but that gets into my personal political views about how these institutions are operated--especially with regards to Hopkins which I'm obviously closer to (I've just heard things from some of my friends and colleagues at other private universities as well.) Certainly I don't think my personal views should reflect how SWC deals with these institutions though. And that I think is the whole problem with this issue--I feel like there are subtle value judgments going into it from all sides of the issue. I was pretty much on board when SWC instituted the administrative fees, because the people doing the hard work behind the scenes, deserve to be compensated, and there are of course other costs to running the whole thing. I just would have preferred it were left at that. All that said, I'll reiterate, I see the other side of this too and I think that what the Steering Committee has proposed here is fair. I just wonder how case-by-case decisions are made. Thanks, Erik > ------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Matt Davis <jiffyc...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:49 PM > To: Ethan White <et...@weecology.org>, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> > Cc: Software Carpentry Discussion <discuss@lists.software-carpentry.org> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Workshops for Corporations > > > We are indeed planning to rely on tax designation for the purposes of > categorizing hosts. We want to keep it relatively simple. All hosts, for- > and non-profit, are permitted to ask for fee waivers/reductions based on > need. > > - Matt > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:41 PM Ethan White <et...@weecology.org> wrote: > > On 03/31/2015 03:36 PM, Erik Bray wrote: >> One thing I'm wondering is, under this program, how a "for-profit >> corporation" is defined. I have absolutely no clue about corporate >> law so maybe this is very simple. However, I for one would consider >> something like Johns Hopkins University a for-profit corporation (no >> matter how it presents itself otherwise). Or Harvard for that matter. >> At the same time, I don't feel that way necessarily if an individual >> department in the university with a limited training budget is the >> host. So, I'm a little confused. But maybe that's just me. >> > I think the best way to handle this is to rely on the official tax > status of the organization in the organizations home country. So, in the > US, they would need to be a 501(c) organization > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization (typically > 501(c)(3)), which almost all universities are. > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.software-carpentry.org http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
