Please find a way to clarify how decisions are made around "Funding for Bundler" vs. "Funding for André's work on Bundler"

[practicingdev]

I'm filing this ticket even though I really have no clue what's appropriate and don't have a stake in how things get spent.

But I do think that when you have a relationship that looks like this...

Director <--> RubyTogether <---> Bundler <---> Maintainer

And the left and right side of that graph map to the same person, you have a higher responsibility to clarify how things get allocated.

I understand how the current conflicts of interest policy works, and I don't want to suggest solutions to that. But I feel responsible disclosure is in order here, or alternatively, constraints are in order.

For example, there's a huge difference between "Board members won't take on more than five hours per week of paid time without unanimous board consent" and "No limits on funding as long as there's a majority vote, and no transparency into the breakdown between André's work and the overall top line Bundler funding"

It'd be good to find a way to frame this policy in a sufficiently general way so that it applies to any board member involvement in any project.

Perhaps an itemized version of #6 would do well here. For example...

Bundler: 27 hours at 150/hr (30% board, 70% third party)

Please feel free to explore any variant of this idea that gives similar transparency to the public (or at the very least, members of the RubyTogether org).

The underlying motivation for all of these suggestions is that your conflict of interest policy is only going to be as valuable as its ability to be independently audited and interpreted by your members.

[adarsh]

Quick update - thanks for this feedback and this is a valid concern. We are actively working on this and will release updates here as they occur. Thanks in advance for your patience!