[tor-bugs] #10013 [Website]: Better Reflect Existing Sponsorship Information on the Website

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#10013: Better Reflect Existing Sponsorship Information on the Website
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
     Reporter:           |      Owner:  phobos
  cypherpunks            |     Status:  accepted
         Type:           |  Milestone:
  enhancement            |    Version:
     Priority:  normal   |   Keywords:  transparency, sponsors, financial,
    Component:  Website  |  disclosure
   Resolution:           |  Parent ID:
Actual Points:           |
       Points:           |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Comment (by cypherpunks):

 Replying to [comment:6 phobos]:
 > Replying to [comment:4 arma]:
 >
 > > I agree that this would be really useful. It looks like #9614 is where
 we changed it from mentioning some 2013 funding to pretending like 2012
 was the end of time.
 >
 > From the financial perspective, it is the end of time.
 >
 I understand the rationale here, but where I was coming from in submitting
 the ticket is that I'd assumed this page was for users, not accountants.
 Maybe the piece about accounting rules dictating how and the information
 can be disclosed could be added, if necessary?
 >
 > > Andrew, do we as a non-profit have any legal responsibility to
 disclose only audited things on a webpage like this (ugh), or can we just
 be (best-effort) accurate?
 >
 > We've been repeatedly told by our auditors and accountants to not
 disclose any financial data which is not audited to avoid messy IRS laws
 of premature disclosure. I'm investigating which laws and what the courts
 have done with such premature disclosure. We can assess our risks of
 publishing things when we have better info.
 >
 Any news on this? I would be very surprised if there were any risk of
 making disclosures like "we anticipate receiving a large grant from
 Sponsor X." It seems like it should be possible to keep users informed
 with more recent information--even if things aren't set in stone and
 audited yet--without running afoul of IRS rules.
 >
 > > I think we should simply not list an end date when we aren't sure when
 the support will end. And then hopefully every so often we'll put end
 dates on the ones that did end the previous year.
 >
 > This would fall under "premature disclosure".
 >
 Are you sure about that? I've definitely seen other nonprofits' blog posts
 excitedly announcing that they've received grant funding. I suppose that
 could be bad behavior on their part, but my impression is that it's a
 relatively common practice.
 >
 > > I also like the idea of putting dates into the future when we know
 them, e.g. the NSF grant with GATech and Princeton should be written as
 2012-2016.
 >
 > The Sponsorship page is people who've actually paid us, not promise to
 pay us. I hear the USG promises to pay us $2 billion in 2018.

 From a user's perspective on transparency, I would respectfully argue that
 promises to pay are still relevant to users. I'm not suggesting this is an
 issue for The Tor Project, but I think it's analogous to the way that the
 appearance of financial conflicts of interest can sometimes be just as
 important as actual conflicts of interest.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10013#comment:9>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online