Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo NPO Business Model thoughts

[Marius Mauch]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:12:06 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote:

> In brief, which needs MUCH expanding upon. My concept is basically for
> Gentoo to remain the type of NPO that one can NOT donate to. Then
> write off that donation as a charitable expense. That is not saying
> businesses could not write it contributions or bills, just would be
> classified differently.
>
> Instead Gentoo would be the type of NPO that would have it's own NON
> PROFIT generating revenue stream via paid services, outside
> funding/contributions ( not donations but funders/contributors could
> still expense ), and via other means like schwag, etc. To generate
> revenue, Gentoo would also have/require paid employees, developers
> ( ebuild and internal ), administrators ( gwn, docs, etc ), system
> admins ( infra, etc ), along with volunteer contributors.

So basically you want to merge The Gentoo Foundation and teh Gentoo
project into a "normal" software company like Redhat or Novell, just
without profit oriented shareholders?

> Which volunteering MIGHT be one means to get hired eventually. A
> particularly hairy and complicated detail to work out. As well as
> leadership, CEO, CTO, board, council, etc. Paid? Amounts? Office
> location? Remote distributed, etc and so on.

Going by observations during Googles SOC program the distribution
aspect is going to be an administrative nightmare if this goes beyond a
certain scale. Not to mention the impact this would have on the social
structure of the project, as adding even a little money is going to
change a lot of things, and not necessarily in a good way. 

> Think the world's OS. A NPO company existing to put out the best
> operating system in the world for free and for the benefit of all.
> Along with services to back it up for those with the need, like
> enterprises. All WITHOUT a profit driven bottom line. Just
> consumer/world interest. In a nutshell Gentoo would kinda be like the
> RedCross.

A pretty naive point of view IMHO. Even fi we wouldn't officially be
profit oriented, as soon as you hire people and require revenue you
become profit oriented in some way, both to secure existing jobs and to
eventually create new ones. And comparison with the Red Cross is kinda
contradicting your statement that we shouldn't rely on donations and
instead sell services.

> Since at the end of the day, there are no shareholders. No investors.
> No one with a profit based interest in the business. Any profits the
> business did generate. Would go back to the business in the form of
> higher employee wadges, provide equipment vs each purchasing their
> own, Office space?, Gentoo World Developer Conference and Expo :),
> with paid travel and ezpenses for all employees/volunteers, etc. As
> always more ways to spend the $ than make it. But spending $ is
> surely a better requirement than having to make it for a
> shareholder/investor :)

I really think you're by far underestimating the impact money could
have on the project, and overestimating the potential profit/revenue.

> Not sure what the details there are for a NPO wrt to generating money,
> having reserves/savings, etc. My model for comparison there is one of
> the most profitable NPO's that most are not even aware is a NPO. The
> PGA Tour, based in Ponte Vedra Beach, FL. Just outside of
> Jacksonville. Which IBM is a MAJOR corporate sponsor off. Also one
> CAN NOT donate $ to the PGA Tour and write it off. It's not that type
> of NPO, and they do make some serious $.

Well, it's sports, sports implies media, and media leads to large
scale advertising, which generates a lot of money, and that's what
motivates sponsors. I hope you're not really thinking in those
dimensions.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.