17 October 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of NumFOCUS.
All votes are reported in the form “(Y/N/A)” (in favor-Y‚ opposed-N‚ abstentions-A; e.g. “4-1-2” means “4 in favor, 1 opposed, and 2 abstentions”).
October 17, 2019
Board Members: Lorena Barba, James Powell, Andy Terrel, Katrina Riehl, Sylvain Corlay, Jane Herriman (10:45 PST).
ED: Leah Silen
Not attending: Stéfan
Approval of Minutes from last meeting: Not yet approved: 3-0-0
Resolutions Voted on by Email, Github or additional meetings:
Q3 Financial Report:
Received the Q3 report yesterday, expect some corrections
Pydata numbers are misleading
Gross not net numbers are reported.
Many events got delayed to Q4.
Berlin should bring in $65K profit, and New York is anticipated
at $100K profit.
We expect to hit our projects with a bit over, projected $130K net
Summit expenses are not included.
The Summit has a separate budget
Sloan granted $40K
Estimate $50-60K costs from the NF budget
Total $100K as an expense
Why are salary & tax projects off
People started mid year which reduced cost
Projected cost for PEO was less.
So next year we see an increase in this
Fundraising/soliciting individual donations
Raised $50K so far
3 more campaigns this year
End of year
Corporate sponsor emerging leaders
Major grants coming in Q4
Is there a risk due to staff salary being full year?
- We will have reviews at the end of the year, but yes
Observation, project admin fees 20% compared to profit of PyData – projected budget was 800k tickets + 310k sponsors – 700k expenses = profit 410k for Pydata. Compared to 80k income in project admin fees.
Good to have these ratios in our head in our discussions with the community. Help correct the general misconception that project fees are what fund the organization.
Cost of services provided is higher than project admin fees
Having talked to projects about raising their fees:
Andy: it is difficult and we used pydata revenue to cover this
James: Travis called it the lightweight overhead model
Perhaps too much of a burden on PyData to hold up the organization.
Projects don’t know that they are not sustaining NumFOCUS operations
Communication about the services we provide could be better
Raising the overhead rate from 10% to 15% isn’t a huge impact, to be more fair we would need to increase fees to 40%, but that goes against our established model.
Need to say “no” to projects more, for example, when we receive requests for custom reports and visualizations to be better.
Would be good to have more strategic conversation
Terry feels we should be able to increase our individual donations by 3X or 4X
We should have Terry present his plans to the board
Executive Director’s Report:
We now have a set of case studies published on the website, thanks to some great work from Gina. These include the use of NF tools in first-time imaging of a black hole, curing disease, and ethics in AI/ML.
a. Tabled from last meeting - Project Status Criteria for Affiliated and Sponsored Projects
b. New Affiliated Project Application - ObsPy: Stéfan is the champion (Tabled until next meeting)
c. New Application for Affiliated Project Status
i. [*GeoPandas*] ii. Champion - Katrina will champion. - (Sylvain) Question: how do we communicate about subprojects of large projects such as jupyter (jupyterlab, jupyterhub, binder). - (Sylvain) Should we consider GeoPandas as part of pandas?
a. Retiring Inactive Affiliated Projects: Stéfan (Tabled for next meeting)
b. Twitter policies
Recent tweets may have left NumFOCUS’s relationship to Anaconda ambiguous. We discussed being more mindful of how NF communications may impact public perception of this relationship.