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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 08:28 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: 
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:09:25 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote:
>
> > Entities can scale up or down based on revenue. There is nothing saying
> > one has to sustain any level of business. When one has no one to answer
> > to but oneself and their purpose. Only thing that would dictate anything
> > for Gentoo would be the people within Gentoo running it based on what
> > they felt was best or etc.
>
> And this is what can't work when you have people on the payroll, with
> money from third parties you (both the distro and the individual dev)
> have to answer those one way or the other.

Answering to those that give you money is more something a for profit
would do for it's investors. A NPO short of being transparent on
allocation/spending of funds, should not have to answer to anyone but
itself and it's purpose. Again that's a matter of coming up with a
revenue model to where it can stand on it's own. Not be dependent on
donations/contributions which could be withdrawn if funds were spent
other than imagined when donated/contributed.

> > Well it seems there are many problems that won't be solved when things
> > are handed over to the SFC. Most say the current direction is either non
> > or not a good one. Most borderline quitting as is :)
>
> As said before (and on similar -core threads in the past):
> Define the problem before even thinking about a solution!

We lack leadership, and I am not talking about council leadership. More
overlord/CEO type leadership. Moving Gentoo as a whole forward on all
fronts.

Beyond leadership we lack an organized structure and any forms of
responsibility on an enforced basis, beyond not breaking something via a
commit or etc. Also some minor social stuff, but that was reactive no
proactive, and doesn't really pertain to my proposal or the problems at
the top.

> Mixing multiple mostly unrelated problems together (without ever
> really defining them) and then come up with a proposal as an
> alternative to a proposed solution to one of those problems (that is
> fairly obvious and even documented) isn't going to work.

I guess I am not being clear that in the proposal process, one of the
first things is to identify ALL problems. Then come up with a proposed
plan to address those problems. This is nothing different than starting
any business, or coming up with a new business plan/model for an
existing entity. 

> So if you want to solve any social problems in the project, go back and
> identify and define them, figure out why they exist and only then start
> thinking about how they can be solved. Until then this discussion is
> pointless as we're arguing from two completely different positions.

I am not talking about social aspects. More so than the project as a
whole moving forward. If a snake has no head, what's the point in
discussion what the body can or can't do. Or any problems there in?
 
> > Granted the foundation structure and etc as is has likely failed. I
> > think there are many successful foundations out there. One of my long
> > time favorite has been the Firebird Foundation. But we have another to
> > look at, the Gnome Foundation. Who left the SPI, which still manages
> > Debian.
>
> The structure hasn't failed, the people in charge have.

But I am not sure it's separation from the council and etc makes those
two bodies effective in their own right. Oversight? Leader of both?

Look at the US with our three, and the problems that lie there,
ineffectiveness, lack of oversight etc. Gentoo with only 2 is almost
assured to fail there.

>  The structure
> only failed in that most foundation members don't care much about the
> foundation (maybe the copyright assignment stuff would have changed
> things a bit, but that also failed).
> Hell, things failed so miserably that the structure was never properly
> set up int he first place (bylaws anyone?).

And there is no one else to care about the foundation if the devs don't.
Nor is there anyone responsible for the duties the foundation didn't
perform. Does the council take over when the foundation falls short, or
visa versa?

> Not sure what you want to say here, but again: the council has nothing
> to do with the foundation and the legal aspects, so any decision
> regarding joining the SFC doesn't affect the council.

Till we join the SFC, disband the remaining foundation, and leave it up
to council members to interact with the SFC. Which I don't think the
council interacted with the foundation on those matters. So the council
will be taking on new roles and responsibilities. Which makes this 100%
relevant to the council as well.

> >
> > Ok, but then again we were supposed to be electing in new trustees. So
> > given that the existing seem burned out. Some not as ideally present or
> > available. Might be a decision best left to a fresh board of trustees.
> > Much less the time frame to handing things over to the SFC? Sounds like
> > that decision has been finalized.
>
> Not sure if you realized it, but we didn't even have enough nominees to
> hold an election a few months ago. I don't think we'd have so many more
> now.

But I don't recall much of a push or talk about the foundation elections
in general. Which normally is done to spark nominations and the rest.
Like what was done for the council elections. It's allot of work, and I
think maybe those with the ability to hold and administrate the
elections. Barely pulled off the council election, and were burned out
there. No clue where that would put us for next year.

I guess elections are a responsibility of the ? :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java