[SpaceProgram] HSP contract steps and International Grants (was DARPA aims to ...)

[Jerry Isdale]

A GGHC style competition (theme, cash upfront, prizes) takes a fair bit of expense.  Even with the initial 10 teams the basic $900 seed, plus you-competed-prizes would be a fair chunk of our $30k.  And a LOT of organization.
Then again, sorting/reading through N proposals to select 5 for $5k grants is also a lot of organization & work.
But for the DARPA program we need:
1) incorporation
2) non-profit status (possible use of umbrella org for till ours approved)
3) Statement of Work (SoW)

1 incorp requries the bylaws ... make it real simple so there is less for govt to review/hold us to. 
2 comes along side but requires detailed information on the TYPE OF WORK we intend to do... which must meet 501(c)3 guidelines. Contests may not (need legal advice)
3 -- SoW is what The Contract is all about.  That is what we explicitly and verifiably say we are going to do, and what DARPA will get/do.

Negotiation the SoW can be easy or hard. To make it easy (and to make the 501 easy) you get explicit about what you are going to do with the $$.  Which is way I was saying we should collect ideas -- we can use these to craft text of both the SoW and Form1023 

One issue with being a us non-profit giving $ to international groups -- you need to verify the group getting the $ is using it for non-profit purposes.  It helps if the target is a foreign non-profit but how many hackerspaces around the world are non-profits? (perhaps we could as on discuss list?)

Another issue would be giving to non-hackerspace groups (or individuals). Do we do that?  How do we define 'hackerspace'  (there's a big can o'worms)?   Could a bunch of people working on Unobtainium Generator at a TechShop get a HSP grant? A shared shop space in Shanghai, Melbourne or Cape Town?

The SoW will need to be definitive here.  The Form1023 and its reporting papers even more so.

See International Grantmaking Basics - http://www.usig.org/gmbasics-options.asp

Jerry Isdale
http://MauiMakers.com
http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/

On Apr 28, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Paul Szymkowiak wrote:

> 
> On 29 April 2012 02:53, cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think both is good, we propose themes, people can build projects.
> themes can be like education, navigation, in-situ resource, mission
> planning, propulsion, life support, etc.
> 
> We need to finish bylaws and get corped
> 
> Good point. And, as Jerry has pointed out, we still need to decide a bunch of related points around structure, name, purpose, etc.
>  
> 
> Then we solicit members and projects, while running the first
> competition. We can do a competition for glory to show we are serious.
> Probably in the education category. We can do this without them,
> 
> Well, maybe. If we look at the GGHC, all teams were on a reasonably level playing field due to the e14 seed money.
> I suspect a large number of teams would not have participated at all without those funds.
> So, I agree that the "prize" could be simply "glory", but to get a good number of teams involved, associated publicity, and people committing their time to a competition, I think we'd at least need to cover basic materials costs.
> 
>  
> darpa funding is like catalyst in resin sitting in the sun. Either way we
> cure, one way takes longer.
> 
> I wonder if we could obtain a small amount of funding from someone other than DARPA for an initial competition?
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Paul Szymkowiak <paulszym at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > On 28/04/2012, at 9:52 AM, Jerry Isdale <isdale at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok...  we need to start collecting ideas for projects for HSP.
> >
> >
> > Can you confirm why we need to do that? What specific need or requirement is
> > driving us to do that? Understanding that will help us navigate a suitable
> > solution.
> >
> > Unless DARPA are specifically asking, or we're contractually required to, my
> > take is we probably don't need to do this - what we could do is to begin
> > encouraging hackerspaces to propose projects. However, until we have actual
> > funds available, that arguably doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > If DARPA is requiring this, then I suggest we focus on competitions, along
> > the lines Cole, myself and others were discussing.
> >
> > My take is we don't want to end up being the "grand design" committee,
> > planning out a n-year development program ourselves. Instead, I feel we need
> > is to allow hackerspaces to organically define a program.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >  Here's another DARPA project that might have some ideas for people...  heck
> > its hacking satellites!!
> >
> > http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/info-management/232901038
> >
> > Jerry Isdale
> > isdale at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SpaceProgram mailing list
> > SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SpaceProgram mailing list
> > SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/spaceprogram/attachments/20120428/ec0825d1/attachment-0001.html>