Re: [gentoo-project] Looking for ways the Foundation can accomplish its mission.

[Richard Yao]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 10:10 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:47 PM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...but asking for ideas how we can spend money and things like that when
>>>> there's still a risk that we will lose non-profit status or lose our
>>>> current assets if IRS loses patience when we will miss next deadline
>>>> doesn't sound like the right order of priorities.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ++
>>>
>>> The Gentoo Foundation is boring.  This isn't a problem that needs to
>>> be solved.  We're pretty efficient money-wise, which means that
>>> despite almost no effort going into fundraising and our legal
>>> obligations, we're still able to pay our bills and stay under the
>>> radar of regulators who could shut us down at any time.
>>>
>>> When you only need a few thousand dollars a year to keep a global
>>> organization operating that is a GOOD thing.  Let's focus on making
>>> that stronger.  If our legal obligations are all caught up and we have
>>> 5 years of operating funds in the bank, maybe then we can start
>>> thinking about spending more money.
>> Frugality is a good thing. I strongly support the idea of ensuring that the foundation maintain a surplus of funds to last 5 years. However, I also support this discussion of whether the foundation should be spending money on more things than it has in the past. As far as I know, this has never been given proper attention. I think we should consider the opportunity cost of inaction and weight it against the cost of doing something.
>>
>> I think that the foundation should have multiple thresholds at which any recurring expenditures that are created as a result of this discussion are restricted to exercise fiscal restraint. All unnecessary expenses should be suspended if the treasury drops below the projected operating expenses for the next 5 years at any point. “Luxuries” like a conference should be suspended at the 10 year threshold.
>>
>> Fiscal restraint is important for the sake of ensuring that the foundation is never in a financial pinch caused by mismanagement. It also is to ensure that the foundation does not do anything to violate the trust placed in it by those making donations. It is very important that the foundation not do anything that makes donors feel that their donations were wasted.
>>
>> Any spending that the foundation does will make Gentoo better off than had we not spent it and it should be kept within the foundation’s means to avoid a risk of running out of money. The value of getting people together face to face every few years to get the benefits cited by the mainline kernel is hard to quantify, but my feeling is that it is worthwhile if costs to the foundation are kept under $2000 and that it does risk not depleting funding below 10 years of operating expenses.
>
> I mispoke here. I meant to say:
>
> It should be clear beforehand that any spending that the foundation does will make Gentoo better off than had it not occurred and it should be kept within the foundation’s means to avoid a risk of running out of money.
>
> The error was caused by over-editing without a final proofread. My apologies for any confusion.
>>
>> I should add that my support of the conference idea is because the mainline Linux kernel finds putting developers together face to face helps developer productivity. This is not so valuable that the foundation should spend some outrageous sum doing it. If the foundation does host a conference, perhaps it could raise money through tickets. For example, the OpenZFS developer summit was originally free, but it switched to charging $50 per non-speaker attending to cover the costs. There is also the example of the kernel engineering summit and LinuxCon being collocates, such that we could have a separate event for developers that is funded by the main conference.
One more idea. Perhaps the foundation could do a kickstarter to raise funds for the first conference. The key point being that if a critical threshold is not reached, it will be cancelled and those funding it through ticket sales would keep their money.

I guess we could have additional rewards thresholds for higher ticket prices. Say some of us could donate time (in units of hours) to promise to work on a bug of the donors’ choice (preferably before the conference). This of course would be a limited quantity, but it could help fund travel for those that require financial assistance. I suspect that which people receive financial assistance should be kept confidential unless they wish to make it known because I believe that it is a sensitive matter.

That being said, I wish to keep an open mind on these things. I am open to being convinced that an idea for spending money that I like is a bad idea. If others decide that it is a bad idea without convincing me, I will respect that. I, like others here, want what is best for Gentoo. I have faith in the collective wisdom of others involved in the project. I accept the possibility that my thinking could be wrong.
>> Anyway, I think the merits of each idea should be weighed. I consider the long term fiscal viability of the foundation to be priority #1 in financial planning. I realized that my previous email did not make that clear. I had assumed that it was a given, but upon reflection, it really ought to be stated.
>>>
>>> If anything needs a bounty, it is an accountant...
>> This is a good point. I think this should be prioritized over other ideas.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>>
>
>