Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-core] LinuxWorld Expo SF
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 05:13:29
Message-Id: b41005390805102213i41cdd8cdie55a3ab5806030ad@mail.gmail.com
1 +gentoo-nfp , -core to bcc at the request of random folks.
2
3 On 5/10/08, William L. Thomson Jr. <wltjr@g.o> wrote:
4 > On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 20:37 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
5 > >
6 > > Fair is relative. I think leaving the option on the table to
7 > > essentially barter is important. This whole 'ad space for 5.99' stuff
8 > > is kind of overly businessy and I think an informal approach gives us
9 > > more leverage and options.
10 >
11 >
12 > How do you informally run a foundation? A foundation is a business
13 > entity under the law. Therefore it should be run and operated as any
14 > other business. Formally.
15 >
16 > I have 0 interest in an informal foundation, agreements, etc.
17
18 I don't see how negociating each agreement separately is less formal
19 than having The One True Policy that covers all agreements.
20
21 >
22 >
23 > > I don't think other projects have problems with having things donated.
24 >
25 >
26 > We don't tend to follow other projects technical lead.
27
28 I don't think finding sponsors is technical work; so whether we follow
29 their technical lead is irrelevant, but true the argument that
30 'everyone else is not doing it' is kind of crappy, so I'll drop this
31 point.
32
33 >
34 >
35 > > I certainly see some value in approximating how much the stuff is
36 > > worth for tax purposes should we persue 501c3 status,
37 >
38 >
39 > It's pretty much required flat out. Even if we don't do a 501c3. It's
40 > good accounting and booking keeping practices. Pretty sure even for a
41 > 501c6, there is requirement for financial accounting and public
42 > disclosure.
43
44 Accounting is good, no disagreement there.
45
46 >
47 >
48 > > but I don't
49 > > think Gentoo needs to 'pay' for services (via ads, cash or otherwise)
50 > > if sponsors are willing to donate them (particularly if gentoo is
51 > > 501c3 and the company can write it off).
52 >
53 >
54 > That came up when there was the potential to lose a crucial sponsor, and
55 > the services they were/are providing Gentoo.
56
57 Companies themselves also go under, but I'll concede that the point
58 you are making is orthogonal to that case.
59
60 >
61 >
62 > > Sorry I missed the part where gentoo was hard up for cash and needed
63 > > to sell advertising on the frontpage to pay our (at present close to
64 > > non-existent) bills?
65 >
66 >
67 > If we lose any major sponsor. We don't have enough funds to keep Gentoo
68 > alive for even a couple months. That is a pretty big issue, and
69 > liability IMHO.
70
71 I want to make my thoughts clear here. If Gentoo was a for-profit
72 entity that derived revenue from it's web presense then having
73 services randomly go down due to lack of sponsors would be a
74 liability. Luckily, Gentoo is a non-profit entity composed entirely
75 of unpaid (by Gentoo) volunteers and having downtime affects one thing
76 and one thing only, Gentoo the distribution.
77
78 I could make a counterargument that instead of paying our sponsors we
79 should pay our developers who probably contribute more cash value via
80 their contributions to gentoo than any of our hardware sponsors.
81 While Gentoo can live on without major sponsors it cannot live on
82 should key people leave the project. Likewise the Gentoo foundation
83 lacks the funds to operate the Gentoo project for a number of months
84 should key members leave.
85
86 In short we have the equivelant problem of cash shortage and inability
87 to operate the Gentoo project without donations.
88
89 Which is in the end, my whole point. This is not a liabilty for us
90 because contrary to popular belief we have a good community where
91 people actually step up and do work and if those key people were to
92 leave I'm fairly sure most would be replaced. And if key sponsors
93 were to leave I'm sure we could find replacements.
94
95 Both of these are likely without us wasting thousands of dollars and
96 ad space on www.gentoo.org trying to solve a problem that honestly
97 does not really exist and is just a 'business liability.'
98
99 >
100 >
101 > > I don't see other distributions putting third party advertising on
102 > > their webpages; why is advertising on www.gentoo.org being considered?
103 >
104 >
105 > Because we have ads there now. I just quickly looked around, and only
106 > OpenSUSE has any sponsor type ads, or any ads on their home page.
107 >
108 > IMHO a sponsor giving us services worth $, in exchange for an ad on g.o.
109 > Is paying for advertising, just not directly.
110 >
111 >
112 > > What other funding options have you considered and why did you pick
113 > > advertising on our frontpage over those other options?
114 >
115 >
116 > We really have not gotten to the funding issue. Also this idea is not
117 > really on the table for consideration. I just mentioned it because it
118 > was brought up and discussed amongst the trustees. But for now, it was
119 > decided to not go that route. It might come up when we get to focus on
120 > funding.
121 >
122 > That idea just came up when we were faced with a potential catastrophe,
123 > and no immediate way to generate substantial revenue. To possible bail
124 > ourselves out if need be.
125 >
126 > However another thought that came along in an unrelated discussion. Was
127 > to provide terms of re-distribution for like our release media. Allowing
128 > pretty much anyone to sell Gentoo release media, shwag, etc, but with a
129 > ~20% net given to the foundation requirement.
130 >
131 > That was another idea I had in reaction to us possible having to sue
132 > people over selling our release media, and other stuff. If there was a
133 > potential bounty to be collected via any suit, due to owed funds. That
134 > might make it worth while for an attorney, even pro bono, to pursue.
135 > Versus them doing the same, for no possible reward.
136 >
137 >
138 > > What does offered advertising for non-sponsors do to Gentoos image?
139 >
140 >
141 > If it's tech related stuff, what does it matter? If people know those
142 > funds go to improving Gentoo, providing more resources, more free stuff,
143 > etc. I really don't see many having an issue.
144 >
145 >
146 > > I don't think many of our sponsors are equipped to answer that question.
147 >
148 >
149 > With a site ranked ~26k in the world. Our sponsors with ads on g.o.
150 > should know off hand if those ads are working or not. It should be
151 > pretty clear and visible in website traffic stats, in house questions
152 > asked, etc. Granted conversions would be pretty hard to track, thus the
153 > asking in house.
154 >
155 > But then again we could do a reverse experiment. Take down the ads, and
156 > see what difference it makes or doesn't make to our sponsors.
157 >
158 >
159 > > > Plus we never have the worry of services being yanked, because we are
160 > > > paying for them :)
161 > >
162 > > That would depend on the terms in our contract no?
163 >
164 >
165 > Rarely does a company terminate or not renew a contract to a paying
166 > customer. So as long as we are paying for services, and those contracts
167 > are paid ones, paid on time. I don't see that being an issue at all. I
168 > believe world wide more people pay for hosting services, etc rather than
169 > receive them for free or donated. Maybe not as much in FOSS, but most
170 > stuff out there is paid. Seems reliable enough of a way to go that the
171 > world keeps spinning :)
172 >
173 >
174 > --
175 >
176 > William L. Thomson Jr.
177 > amd64/Java/Trustees
178 > Gentoo Foundation
179 >
180 >
181 >
182 --
183 gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation agreements & liabiliities was -> LinuxWorld Expo SF "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>