[LGM] Request For Comments - reorganizing financial tasks for LGM
Louis Desjardins
louis.desjardins at gmail.com
Mon May 9 16:16:20 UTC 2016
Hi all,
[Warning, long email. I hope useful. Top posting because of length.]
[Quote] Louis raises the point that there are other options to be
> discussed, such as eliminating reimbursements or charging admission or
> membership fees.
> These other options seem exceedingly undesirable. We won't ignite a
> firestorm by opening it for public comment.
> The consensus is that we will examine first options to continue funding
> reimbursements in full.
> But, if we don't have an organization in place, we will not promise
> reimbursement.
>
There are quite a few informations to share here, before we can actually
state whether an idea is "exceedingly undesirable" or not.
By what I read so far, it is my understanding that there is a need for
clarification.
We must discuss based on facts. Not based on opinions (that are certainly
following good faith) but that cannot help us as such. The facts can help.
Opinions will rise after we master the facts.
- Mentioning that some ideas *"seem exceedingly undesirable"* closes the
discussion.
- Should we walk away from a discussion in the fear of *"igniting a flame
war"*?
- Rather, let’s keep a stiff upper lip. :-)
- And discuss freely/openly.
Being in charge of the finances of LGM for over 10 years makes me believe
that what I have to say in this discussion has some importance.
- To me, the terms of the discussion are not clear.
- The debate is framed in misleading terms because it is based on false
statements as I explain below.
- To me, there is a need to reframe that discussion or else we’ll go
nowhere.
- At the root of it, there are assumptions that are untrue.
- For one, saying we don’t have a bank account is simply untrue.
- For two, saying we don’t have an organisation, is also untrue.
- For three, assuming the system is broken doesn’t bring much light to the
discussion. All is wrong? Part is wrong? Which part? - Can we put on a
scale how wrong wrong is and how threatening it is to the LGM?
Question 1:
Where would the reimbursement money transit from Google or Pledgie to
anyone being reimbursed if not through a bank account?
Question 2:
Where the invoice to Google and other sponsors would come from if not from
an organisation?
Asking those 2 question is answering them.
- The choice of AQDPLL (to handle the money and make the reimbursements)
over GNOME has been discussed and agreed years ago after we decided 11
months delay was too long to process the reimbursements and because we
thought it was a good idea to save 5% on admin charges.
- Now, we can change that, of course.
- We can create a new organisation.
- We can do whatever we want.
- We can try to make things better, smoother, more reliable, etc.
- "System is broken, we need an organisation, we need a bank account..."
- We seem to conclude before even gathering the facts!
The vast majority of the people asking for a reimbursement have been
reimbursed successfully so far and all of them will be reimbursed in the
end, despite issues with documents and short volunteer time, only to name a
few variables involved in the process. I have put together a list of
variables and issues that can arise when dealing with reimbursements in a
previous email.
*So, is our system broken?*
*Where could we improve the system?*
- Securing the budget ahead of LGM, at the time we confirm the talks and
even, at the end of the LGM, for the next.
- Making sure the budget can cover 100% of the needs
- Accelerate the reimbursement process.
- Can we reimburse before LGM?
*The software development metaphor*
Someone coming at a developing team saying the program is broken would be
asked to identify the bugs, expose the steps to reproduce them and name
them properly, write a summary, check in the database if an issue has
already a bug # and so on. That way, people who can do something know what
the problem is.
I would invite everyone who wants to get involved in this discussion not to
penalise the process by condemning any idea on the first place without
analysis of the pros and cons related to that idea.
I think this is basic.
I have raised what I believe to be valid questions that only need to be
answered.
Asking a question is not suggesting the answer (except for my rhetoric
effect above).
If the group is too small to discuss, then we can organise a wider
consultation.
Introducing words like "flame war" in the discussion is also a way to frame
the debate into something it isn’t. It should not happen. I wonder whether
this is meant to be constructive in any way. To me, this is, at the very
least, undesirable.
If I am to be part of a discussion, I want to welcome ideas from other and
I expect the same in turn.
*My first question was about the reimbursement itself**(I strongly believe
it is at least worth we give it some thoughts, after taking notes of the
facts below)*
- We reimburse between 15 and 20 people each year. We have over 150
participants to LGM each year (a number that can go up dramatically in some
LGM, and nonetheless the number of people asking for a reimbursement is
rather stable).
- 10-15% of the participants need (or at least ask) for financial
support.
- How many of these people would not make it to LGM if there was no
financial help available?
- In other words, how many really "need" the financial support?
- Would there absence be a threat to LGM?
- Arguably, a fair part of the sponsored people are speakers at LGM.
However we have 60-80 talks at LGM. Subsequently, some (tough) questions
arise: how many speakers at LGM are also motivated by the fact that their
trip may be reimbursed? Who in that group would have not come if there were
no reimbursement? What would be the effects on LGM?
- Would there absence reduce the appeal of LGM to others, and be a
threat to its overall quality?
- To find out, we have to ask those people.
- We can also ask ourselves if the absence of some people ever had a
negative impact on LGM, whether they are helped financially or not.
- There is no hidden intention. We only need to try to figure out the
impact of such a decision (if we would in the end make a decision not te
reimburse any longer).
- Is there something wrong at trying to find out an important fact that
could lead to a better overall understanding of the situation? I don’t
think so. The answers matter.
*About the financing*
1. The annual budget for reimbursements is roughly between 10-15k each
year and so far we have succeeded to reimburse 100%.
2. Collecting money from the corporate world is a challenge.
- The amount we gather each year goes down significantly.
- In 2016, that amount was *zero*.
- In 2016, Google (our main sponsor for years) didn’t reply to our
emails (read well, no reply at all)
3. Collecting money from the community (Pledgie) is a challenge.
- The amount we gather each year goes down as well. Historically it
spanned between 4k and 12k.
- In 2016, that amount is $1,300.00. This is by far the lowest amount
we ever gathered through Pledgie.
4. Making sure we have enough money to cover each year’s expense is a
challenge.
5. Since we cannot promise we reimburse 100%, some people make the
decision not to come because they can’t live with the risk of not being
reimburse, or partly reimbursed.
6. The large corporations don’t support us, despite some efforts to get
in touch with them.
7. A few large Foundations support us with amounts not exceeding 1k,
when they support us.
8. Unfortunately, I haven’t kept track of the time it takes to fulfill
the reimbursements but I would say that it takes from 40 minutes to a whole
day, for each of the transaction (that includes the paper work, the
verification process and the process itself), depending on the complexity
of the transaction (especially, the currencies involved) and the
compliances of the documents submitted).
9. Plus, the accounting.
*Facts first, opinions after*
When in the full knowledge of the facts, we can answer whether it´s worth
it to spend that much energy on the reimbursement. I am sorry to insist but
really, showing the door to that thinking on the first place is not helping
us understanding much.
Our pledgie campaign has been put under stress some years because people
travelling on their own and not otherwise sponsored or even allowed for
sponsorship tried to gather their funding through the same channel. Of
course, they needed to say why they were asking for money and the name of
LGM was then associated also with those campaign. Clearly, there was no way
we could have avoided that. Those campaign were legitimate. It has happened
in the recent past and it will probably happen again in the future.
*Energy spent vs benefits to the organisation should guide us.*
We have quantitative data and qualitative data.
*One of two things:*
1. We discover that it *would not harm LGM* if we’d quit reimbursing the
10-15% of the participants, case is closed.
2. On the contrary we discover that it *would harm LGM* to a point that
the event would be much less appealing to participants, we move forward
examining the further considerations.
- Where to find the money?
- How?
- How to make sure collecting the money can be sustainable?
*What are our sources of financing?*
1. Our community through Pledgie
2. Corporate sponsors (ex. Google)
3. Non-profit organisations private (ex. FSF, PSF)
4. Public organisation public (ex. EU, OIF)
*What could be our sources of financing in the future?*
1. Our community through annual membership
2. Our community through attendance fees at LGM
3. Corporate sponsors (ex. Google)
4. Non-profit private organisations (ex. FSF, PSF)
5. Public organisations (ex. EU, OIF)
Our sources of financing are not under control at present time and this can
be considered a threat to LGM. The idea behind the membership and the
attendance fee is to show the good example from the start. The LGM has a
community that support it. We have so many members that pay their annual
membership. Say 200 members at $100 each, that’s already $20,000. That’s a
good start in my view. Once you are a member, you are entitled to lower
fees at the conference. If you gather another 20 or 30k at the conference,
you secure a budget of 40 to 50k every year, before you actually arrive to
LGM...
So, either we quit financing or we get organised. *The most difficult part
is to get the money in.* Not create another non-profit.
There is no relationship between the legal and banking infrastructure and
the budget. It’s the people that make the difference.
*Hence, my second question:*
Could we consider putting together an annual membership fee?
- There could be 3 (even, 4 if we include Support) categories :
1. Students $
2. Regular $$
3. Support $$$
4. Corporate $$$$
*Subsidiary question:*
Considering the sustainable benefits of a structured and predictable
budget, could we charge a reasonable and modulated attendance fee to enter
LGM, base on members and non-members?
Before making quick answers, let’s examine the pros and cons.
*Pros*
- Membership will help secure a yearly budget to a somewhat predictable
level.
- Attendance fee will contribute to raise the LGM budget to the level we
expect to cover the reimbursements.
- We can use the membership numbers to show the serious of the organisation
to other organisations
- Hypothesis: showing that our members help us secure a budget will help
raising public funds and corporate funds.
Note: Part of the funding could be used to finance local expenses such as
printing T-Shirts, renting some equipment, printing programmes, posters,
etc. The local budget is always on the shoulders of the local organisers
and that could be solved by a membership. Providing we have a preview of
that budget ahead (so we can secure it), all we need to reimburse is valid
documents. From the Canadian non-profit point of view, the invoice can be
issued in any country and reimbursed, just like a plane ticket.
*Cons*
- A membership fee might turn away some people who cannot afford the fees.
Hence the necessity to make sure the student fee (or, also, the fee we
could charge to unemployed, etc.) is reasonable.
- If so, it would be good to know why do these people don’t like the idea.
- Other cons?
*Members expectations*
Members will expect in turn that LGM offers them some benefits.
These could be (open discussion, no censorship, just some ideas):
- Reduction on attendance fee to LGM (compare with what other organisation
do)
- Automatic subscription to an LGM Magazine (maybe we can have that project
put back to life?)
- Reduction on T-Shirts and other goodies as they are available (or given
for free?)
- Members of LGM who give a talk at LGM or put together a workshop, or
actively participate to an LGM project are allowed for financial help when
they travel to LGM.
- More ideas?
I have put some numbers down in a previous email, so we can have a better
sense of the possibilities of revenues from a annual membership.
In short, these numbers show that we could in fact secure our budget to the
viable level we expect to cover our expenses from one LGM to another.
I have put them back below for quick reference.
*Administrative considerations:*
- A membership will oblige us to keep track of our members and keep track
of their yearly payment.
- This will include follow up on late payers.
- However, since we do have LGM every year, the LGM could also be a good
time to collect the late payers.
*About the non-profit*
We already have a bank account and a non-profit that is used for that
purpose: gathering the money and reimbursing people. Putting another entity
together will displace the problem to another entity, period. Creating a
new entity will not guarantee we have more money to distribute.
So, the entity discussion comes in after.
Without an entity, we could never have access to the money of OIF. When in
Belgium, we had Constant. When in Montreal, we had AQDPLL. I was not close
to the local organisation but I believe that when in Madrid we had Prado
and we had substantial help from public money (if I am not mistaken).
What this means is, we need an entity where public money is available and
if, in that country, this entity will achieve its goal.
>From the corporate world perspective, it turns out to a simple fiscal
issue. Any company will need an invoice, so they connect the donation to an
expense and they thus pay less income tax. If an individual was to send
such invoice to a corporation, this person would have the obligation to
declare this revenue that would add up to the salary and thus make this
person pay income tax on the "donation". This of course makes absolutely no
sense for the individual, thus the necessity of the non-profit
organisation, which, like any company, can make an invoice to another one.
For Brazil, we can certainly continue using AQDPLL (or create a new one) to
gather the money and to reimburse people. However to get local public
money, we might need a local organisation. This will remain to be examined
and answered.
I hope this helps.
Happy discussion!
Louis
p.s. Below are the numbers again, just to have them handy.
*Membership fees*
For example, FSF has a membership fee that averages 169 $/year.
Multiplied by 150 people:
Annual income expected *25 350 $*.
We could imagine having more members than 150?
This membership-only budget is a bit too close to our needs and could prove
to be uncomfortable. But we can discuss that.
*Attendance fees*
Say we have 150 people that distributes as such:
- Students 30.
- Individuals 110.
- Corporate 10.
According to PYCON fees we would have gathered this year the following
budget:
- 30 students x 125 $ = 3750 $
- 110 individual x 350 $ = 38 500 $
- 10 corporate x 600 $ = 6000 $
- TOTAL : *48 250 $*
Say LGM would charge less:
- 30 students x 75 $ = 2250 $
- 110 individual x 250 $ = 27 500 $
- 10 corporate x 400 $ = 4000 $
- TOTAL : *33 750 $*
TOTAL LGM ANNUAL BUDGET : 25 350 + 33 750 =
*59 100 $*
We can evaluate as many scenarios as we want. Raising or lowering some
fees, as to establish the most viable scenario.
2016-05-09 11:56 GMT-04:00 Louis Desjardins <louis.desjardins at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> I have put some short answers (yes!) between the lines.
>
> I have also written more detailed answers that I will post in another
> email.
>
> 2016-05-08 18:40 GMT-04:00 Nathan Willis <nwillis at glyphography.com>:
>
>> 0. Request for Comments
>>
>> 0.1 Preamble
>>
>> Libre Graphics Meeting (LGM) succeeds and thrives as an event because
>> it brings a diverse assortment of people who care about free software
>> and graphics into one place: teams as well as individuals, artists,
>> designers, end users, and developers.
>>
>> Although we often do not talk about it publicly, making this happen
>> every year requires that we raise funds and this disperse those funds
>> to cover costs - primarily, reimbursing attendees for their travel
>> expenses.
>>
>> It has been a while since LGM took a conscious look at how the
>> nuts-and-bolts of those fundraising and dispersal processes work, so
>> we held a voluntary discussion session at LGM 2016 to consider a range
>> of options. We'd like to present the outcome of that discussion here,
>> to the list, and ask for comments.
>>
>> Since discussions on mailing lists can occasionally run ad infinitum,
>> however, and we face a looming practical deadline by which we must
>> make some sort of decision in order to start work on LGM 2017, we want
>> to ask that everyone who wishes to contribute to the conversation do
>> so by MAY 20, 2016.
>>
>>
>> The proposal arising from the discussion session was that LGM should
>> partner with a free-software "umbrella" organization that would provide a
>> fiscal sponsor role only, leaving governance-style decisions to the LGM
>> community. Software in the Public Interest (SPI) was thought to be the
>> leading candidate among "umbrella" organizations.
>>
>
> About the need for a new org, more in my detailed answer, coming soon.
>
>>
>> 0.2 Questions
>>
>> The questions posed to the LGM community, therefore, are:
>>
>> A. Should we try to make a change in the way LGM currently fiscally
>> operates?
>>
>
>> B. If so, what umbrella organization should we work with?
>> (current proposal: Software in the Public Interest)
>>
>> C. What specific conditions should be met by the umbrella organization?
>> (see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LGM_Funding_Notes)
>>
>>
>> What follows is a more detailed examination of those issues as discussed
>> at the session in London.
>>
>> 1. What can we improve
>>
>> There are two halves to our financial operations: raising donations
>> and reimbursing attendees for their travel.
>>
>
> There is a 3rd part, local budget, for local expenses.
>
>>
>> 1.1 Reimbursing
>>
>> Years ago, LGM had an arrangement with the GNOME Foundation through
>> which the Foundation's accountants would handle the paperwork and
>> red-tape of sending out reimbursements (be they checks or electronic
>> payments of some sort). LGM always retained the decisions about who
>> (and how) correctly qualified for those reimbursements.
>>
>> GNOME Foundation no longer does this for us, though, and so for the
>> past few years, the task of processing all of the travel documents and
>> financial information has been left up to volunteers in their spare
>> time. It is a grueling and thankless task, far more so for a
>> volunteer. Every reimbursement request has its peculiarities, and
>> everyone has a sense of urgency.
>>
>
> GNOME was with us for less that 2 years. We eventually switched to AQDPLL
> (Canada-based non-profit corporation).
>
>>
>> If we can find a way to forge a new arrangement where the processing
>> work could be offloaded to a professional bookkeeper, but one in which
>> we as LGM still retain the decision-making part of the process, we
>> believe we could speed up the reimbursement process and make it less
>> painful over the long haul.
>>
>
> The only need here is to hire someone for a short period of time. Please
> refer to my long answer from a previous email.
>
>>
>> 1.2 Fundraising
>>
>> An arrangement of that sort would also allow our volunteers to spend
>> less of their time juggling competing bank-routing-system details and
>> more of their time talking to potential donors. Here again, in recent
>> years, the job of soliciting donations has been left to a few
>> volunteers, and it is a time-consuming process -- even for
>> long-standing friends of the event who are strong supporters of free
>> software.
>>
>> A corollary to the fundraising equation is that, since we no longer
>> operate in conjunction with the GNOME Foundation, it is substantially
>> more difficult to convince potential corporate donors to support LGM.
>> This is because corporate financial officers prefer to work with
>> established, well-known entities when significant sums of money are
>> involved.
>>
>
> This is not exact. We do have the ability to invoice large corporations
> and we have done it over years.
>
>>
>> This puts LGM, which is a loose coalition of like-minded projects and
>> individuals, at a disadvantage. Corporate donors expect to deal with
>> "known quantities": organizations with an easily-verifiable public track
>> record. They also expect standard accounting practices: invoices for
>> their donations that conform to generally accepted business rules, the
>> ability to accept donations as bank transfers or corporate credit
>> cards, and so on.
>>
>
> Credit cards is the only mean we cannot use for now because it would cost
> us too much for the benefit. An invoice with a wire transfer is well
> accepted.
>
>>
>> Our volunteers often have good contacts at potential corporate donors,
>> but as the sponsorship requests move up the ladder internally, personal
>> contacts mean less and less to those people who make company-wide
>> decisions about marketing budgets, and legal formalities mean more and
>> more.
>>
>
>> If we can forge an accounting arrangement under which an official
>> non-profit organization (or for-profit company) can accept donations
>> on behalf of LGM, our fundraising efforts will become easier and, in
>> all likelihood, more successful.
>>
>
> Somehow, I wonder how that assertion made it into the present overview.
> Some info was lost over time. We already have all that. Only, it is
> Canada-based. We can already deal with most currencies and with basically
> any corporation. We dealt satisfactorily with OIF, for instance, and with
> Google, HP, PSF, FSF, Wikimedia CH, and other companies and organisations.
>
> Questions we could raise are, would a Europe-based (which country)
> non-profit be more helpful, and why? What is it that a Canadian-based
> non-profit cannot do, with regards to LGM activity?
>
>
>> 2. Options
>>
>> 2.1 Requirements
>>
>> In essence, we would ideally like to find an arrangement that provides
>> us with two things:
>>
>> - a legal entity that can accept donations on behalf of LGM.
>>
>
> We have that already.
>
>>
>> - access to a bookkeeper or accountant who can process reimbursements.
>>
>
> I suggested to hire a bookkeeper (I could have had this idea long ago).
> However, let’s not dream too much: incomplete documents will always happen
> and will delay reimbursements. But it is true that the process can be
> drastically accelerated if we hire a bookkeeper, which I will do this year,
> starting May 15.
>
>>
>> Moreover, it was generally agreed upon that we do NOT want to enter
>> into an arrangement that imposes additional structure or requirements
>> on the LGM organizing team or participants (e.g., a sophisticated
>> governance model or formal membership requirements for
>> participation). However, the primary issue is filling the fiscal
>> requirements listed above.
>>
>
> I think *discussing about membership* is sane and will not add so much
> work on the organisation. We’re speaking of a couple hundred of members,
> annually. This cannot be considered a heavy work.
>
>>
>> 2.2 Some alternatives
>>
>
> Read me well, I am not disagreeing with the idea of switching from AQDPLL
> to another entity. I only want to make sure we understand that such a
> switch will not further dismiss us from the work we have to do in order to
> access to more funds.
>
> One of the main task we failed to do over the past 11 years was to put
> together the *LGM Annual Report* telling what are the benefits for the
> projects in a given LGM (with both quantitative and qualitative data) and
> thus why should the corporate world support our activities. There were some
> attempts, but we never came up with a finished product. I am not blaming
> anybody — if I would, I would blame myself first. We were asked such report
> by Bdale back in 2007. We tried to gather the info from the team and I
> recall having received only one report, from one project.).
>
> Speaking of priority, this one is high and it is urgent. Unless we see
> this emergency, there is not much a new org will help us achieve that we
> cannot do already.
>
>
>>
>> Several options were discussed, including
>>
>> - partnering with an existing, friendly free-software organization.
>>
>> - working with an organization that specializes in running
>> free-software events.
>>
>> - associating with an "umbrella" organization that serves as fiscal
>> sponsor to member projects.
>>
>> Options for partner organizations include the GNOME Foundation, KDE
>> e.V., the Python Foundation, the Free Software Foundation Europe
>> (FSFE), and several others.
>>
>> Options for event-planning organizations include The Linux Expo of
>> Southern California (SCaLE), DevConf, and the Linux Foundation Events
>> program.
>>
>> Options for umbrella organizations include Software In The Public
>> Interest (SPI), Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), the Apache
>> Software Foundation (ASF), and the Linux Foundation (LF).
>> In the subsequent discussion, several additional partner-organization
>> options were asked about, including Constant VZW.
>>
>> 3. Recommendation
>>
>> 3.1 Umbrellas
>>
>> From a strictly structural standpoint, opinion favored the
>> "umbrella" organization option. Several of the umbrella organizations
>> offer flexible agreements for new member projects, under which the
>> project can agree only to a specific set of services (e.g., accepting
>> donations and processing reimbursements).
>>
>> These umbrella organizations' membership rules also, generally speaking,
>> allow member projects to end their association with the umbrella
>> organization
>> voluntarily. This was seen as a plus, because it would allow us to try
>> working
>> with an umbrella fiscal sponsor but allow us to change to a new model if
>> that
>> arrangement proves unsatisfactory.
>>
>
> Any mandate we give should have a specific unilateral "walk away" clause,
> with no penalty.
>
>>
>> 3.2 Potential partners
>>
>> There was interest in SPI and SFC as potential umbrella fiscal sponsors,
>> in
>> particular, due to their flexible service-and-membership rules. Other
>> umbrella organizations, including ASF and LF, are substantially more
>> rigid in their structure.
>>
>> Between the two, SPI was thought to offer some advantages, such as its
>> existing relationship with Freedesktop.org, its association with X.Org
>> (which,
>> like LGM, is an organization that exists only to provide collaboration
>> and conferences),
>> and its broad international experience (through Debian and other large
>> member
>> projects). But the participants believed we should remain open to other
>> umbrella
>> organizations, too, if more options are suggested.
>>
>> 3.3 Asking questions
>>
>> The discussion ended with participants agreeing to formulate a single,
>> shared list of questions we would like to ask potential umbrella
>> organizations about how they function and about how a membership for
>> LGM would operate. That list of questions is available online at
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LGM_Funding_Notes
>>
>> 4. Reaching a decision
>>
>> The LGM organizers (including those at the event and others who
>> participated via email) believe that we should reach out to one or
>> more umbrella organizations and, if all of our questions are
>> satisfactorily answered, start the process of joining the most
>> appropriate umbrella organization in the next few months.
>>
>> However, because LGM is fundamentally a community event, we want to
>> solicit the comments of everyone who participates.
>>
>> Please take some time to review the subject matter, and reply to the list
>> with your thoughts on the three discussion questions.
>>
>>
>> Again, we would like to have all responses by MAY 20.
>>
>> After that date, we will determine the next stage of the process,
>> assuming that
>> the community favors moving forward.
>>
>>
>> The questions, again, are:
>>
>> A. Should we try to make a change in the way LGM currently fiscally
>> operates?
>>
>> B. If so, what umbrella organization should we work with?
>> (current proposal: Software in the Public Interest)
>>
>> C. What specific conditions should be met by the umbrella organization?
>> (see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LGM_Funding_Notes)
>>
>>
>> [Writing on behalf of the LGM organizing team and those who contributed
>> to the
>> discussion session in London,]
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>
> Thank you, Nate! Nice work and lots of work too!
>
> To all: I have put together a long answer (sorry, not much time to read
> over and make it shorter — this takes time!) that I will post next.
>
> I will be (kind of) offline most of this week and will be able to catch up
> from May 14 and on.
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Louis
>
>>
>>
>> Nate
>> --
>> nathan.p.willis
>> nwillis at glyphography.com <http://identi.ca/n8>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
>> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20160509/67ae5446/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Libre-graphics-meeting
mailing list