> I thought the point of this idea was to make OSS development sustainable,
not to train us all to be founders of startups.
Yes. I think this is a really nice summary of what my point is. Thanks for
putting it so succinctly.
I personally think if you want to make a living out of the OSS
contribution, you actually have to think like a small startup founder
(where your contribution job is your "product").
J.
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:01 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the point of this idea was to make OSS development sustainable,
> not to train us all to be founders of startups. The bar to contributors is
> already high enough as it is (who has the time, energy, and knowledge to
> spend here? I’d assume mostly well-off people).
>
> For comparison, projects developed by a company like Red Hat benefit from
> name recognition of Red Hat more so than any individual developers there. I
> get the impression that a sort of Support Inc would leverage name
> recognition and connections with the people who already do the work.
>
> If projects need their own companies to do all this, then only end user
> applications will thrive at Apache, and all the libraries and developer
> tools will suffer. Applications depend on these things, but that’s a
> problem for next quarter, not the current one.
>
> —
> Matt Sicker
>
> > On May 10, 2022, at 09:02, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I think we are talking about two different approaches then and hence
> the
> > mi understanding. I was thinking more about solving all the
> > legal/administrative barriers.
> >
> > At least that's what I see as a much, much bigger problem than actually
> > doing marketing and finding stakeholders willing to pay for your job (AKA
> > "selling" your job).
> >
> > I think it would be great to identify what is **really** the problem we
> > want to solve and what is the biggest obstacle for those who want to earn
> > money from contributing (I think the survey from the diversity team might
> > help us in understanding that).
> >
> > My personal experience - I think no-one will be able to sell and promote
> > your job as good as you. And when you do a good job, it's easy. Just
> speak
> > about it - at conferences. blog posts, meetups, conferences. There is no
> > better marketing. My personal experience is that for individuals and
> small
> > group of people the best salespeople are those who do the job - and as
> long
> > as they do it in a smart way, and what they sell is a small team of
> people
> > or their own job - this is much more efficient than "hiring" someone to
> do
> > the job. I've been doing that for years in my previous company and we
> tried
> > several times with marketing/sales people and it never worked out until
> we
> > hit some 50-60 people - until then the sales and marketing people who had
> > to learn from us what and how to sell took more time and energy from us
> > than they brought revenue.
> >
> > Being an engineer, while speaking about what we do in a passionate way
> with
> > transparent and sincere statements, and occasional, very focused and in
> > short time spans "sales efforts" (usually revolving around tech
> conferences
> > that I took part on, spoke at or organized) - I personally brought my
> > company maybe 30-40% high-margin revenue in the first few years of our
> > company when we grew from 10 to 40 people. At the same time sales and
> > marketing attempts we did, brought maybe 5% of rather low-margin revenue
> or
> > even loss-inducing revenue. The rest was our CEO's job (also an engineer
> > but unlike me he gave up being an engineer to be CEO but he "was" the
> > company). The best sales are when your customer does not feel you are
> > selling something.
> >
> > Yeah. we dreamt that "we will bring those sales and marketing people and
> > they will do everything for us". But with several attempts it turned out
> -
> > at least for me and my companies in the past - a dreampipe until we got
> the
> > right scale. And even when it did the amount of time spent be (various)
> > engineers on marketing and sales was about the same as before - it was
> just
> > amplified by the sales/marketing teams we had - and it was needed because
> > we had more people. Simply, I strongly believe no matter what, if you
> want
> > to sell your job, you yourself have to spend time on selling and
> marketing.
> > Either doing it or helping others to understand what you do (but the
> latter
> > is far less efficient until you hit the right multiplier). And I have
> many
> > friends who had exactly the same experience with their companies. But
> maybe
> > I am biased of course :). I am just pretty skeptical that bringing
> external
> > people who will sell and market a job of a person or a small team will do
> > any good.
> >
> > I think rather than creating a company like that for those PMC members,
> we
> > should focus on educating those PMC members so that they are aware they
> > have to do it themselves and teach them how they can do it (which BTW. I
> > started to think about organising some workshops about - but this is a
> > completely different topic that will come likely closer to the end of the
> > year).
> >
> > There is also another aspect - how you renumerate those people "doing
> it".
> > There are various models - but for sales usually with fixed retainer and
> > percentage of revenue and the problem with this is that it provides wrong
> > incentivisation - completely misaligned with incentivisation of precisely
> > the teams Matt was talking about "small PMC here, say any of those that
> > have less than 10 committers or so still around (possibly even with only
> 3
> > active PMC members)". Do you think there are many opportunities out there
> > for such "small projects"? If those few PMC members do not already know
> > every single stakeholder that would be interested in their work and have
> > not networked with them, then they probably do not know their "area of
> > business". So what do you expect those "sales" and "marketing" people to
> do
> > in this case? They will simply send a bunch of emails to those that the
> PMC
> > members will point at. That's it. They will not bring you new leads
> > (especially good quality ones), quite the contrary they will get the
> leads
> > from you and start spamming the stakeholders hoping they respond - and
> when
> > they do, they will ... setup a metting with one of the PMC members. This
> is
> > cheap and cost them almost nothing (but also has very small chance of
> > success). And they won't do any more because they will know that chances
> > that they will find someone better are slim, and also revenue brought
> will
> > be small so it's not worth any more effort from their side. However if
> > there is big project with multiple commmiters, stakeholders and
> interested
> > parties - this might be much more interesting for them, because they can
> > build the leads and they can get bigger revenue with bigger probability.
> So
> > effectively - they will de-priorise such small "slim chance of revenue"
> > projects and will be working mostly on the big ones ("better chance of
> > revenue"). Which I think is the opposite you wanted to achieve.
> >
> > Also you have to remember this approach does not scale. If you have
> > multiple different projects, you have no economy of scale - different
> > stakeholders, different leads, diffferent things to learn (and take time
> > of) from PMC members. The "sales" process is much more about "who you
> know"
> > than "what and how you do" and it does not scale well if you have
> different
> > groups of people "to know".
> >
> > But (and again this is my experiences and others might vary) the
> > administrative stuff (invoicing/legal/contracts) is something that:
> >
> > a) takes awfully lot of time energy and brings a lot of frustration
> > (especially when dealing with big customers)
> > b) could be easily outsourced
> > c) has a very straightforward and cheap business model (USD 5 /
> > Invoice/Transfer for example)
> > d) but if done at scale can help both big and small projects alike - and
> > cut a lot of time/overhead that otherwise would be almost imposible for
> > small projects to overcome
> > e) scales beautfully if there might be one legal entity covering many
> > projects
> >
> > Just to give an example - it took 6 months(!) for my "self-employed"
> > company to be registered as Google Contractor. Then after I invoiced my
> > first involce and Google changed Business Entity from Ireland to Poland
> and
> > it took another 3 months to move my company from one to the other. During
> > the 6 months I could not get paid (I luckily had another source of income
> > as smaller companies at startup stage act faster). During the 3 month of
> > transition I did not issue invoices (nor get paid) and after 3 months it
> > took me 2 months of iterations and sending about 10 different invoices
> > until we managed to work out how I should "really" invoice I should issue
> > so that it is in-line with the rules (which I was of course not aware
> of).
> > That took enormous and needles amount of time and energy and brought a
> lot
> > of frustration. T\his could have been avoided if someone - much better in
> > accounting than me - could take care about it.
> >
> > And I simply could afford to wait as I had other sources of income.
> >
> > Another example - I spent a small fortune with my lawyers iterating on a
> > contract that would be good for me (as the customer asked me to provide
> > one). After I did and send it, after two weeks ... I got the customer's
> > contract proposal which had nothing to do with my proposal. I think I
> > already paid more to my lawyers for the preparation of the contract than
> I
> > will earn from the contract in 3-4 months. I did it smartly and I
> prepared
> > the contract in smart enough way so that I can use it as a template for
> my
> > future customers, but still - not having to do it (including time lost
> and
> > energy and frustration) would be a blessing. And this scales wel (if
> > possible,. I am actually planning to donate my contract template to
> others
> > at ASF as I specifically put there some clauses that protected my status
> as
> > an idependent contributor).
> >
> > That's why I - personally - think trying to build a company that will
> > "market" and "sale" your jobs is not the right goal but making a
> machinery
> > that wil allow other contributors to make use of them easily is much more
> > important. But I might be biased of course - maybe I am just totally
> wrong
> > on that. I would not like to take the energy off such initiative if
> someone
> > wants to try it differently - those are just my personal experiences
> that I
> > wanted to share.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:02 PM Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> These were the parts, that I was thinking should be the work of such a
> >> shared Support Inc. That the projects could concentrate on the work,
> not on
> >> what's needed to get the work.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> >> To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> >>
> >> So let's look at this from the point of view of a small PMC here, say
> >> any of those that have less than 10 committers or so still around
> >> (possibly even with only 3 active PMC members). I don't see how asking
> >> an already overburdened project to bootstrap their own ability to work
> >> on the project fulltime by adding marketing, sales, client relations,
> >> and other business needs, will end up helping any PMC other than those
> >> who already have companies sponsoring development. Simply look at the
> >> various states of what each PMC's website looks like, and you can
> >> probably figure out which PMCs would still be highly unlikely to be
> >> able to market themselves.
> >>
> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:10 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Worth checking.
> >>>
> >>> Seems to be possible for other non-profits with the same regime (see
> the
> >>> list of the hosts there).
> >>>
> >>> I think the big difference here is not that the ASF points to
> >>> OpenCollective, but that Open Collective points to ASF as the "host"
> and
> >>> the PMC initiatives point to ASF as "host" when they join open
> >> collective -
> >>> not the other way round. ASF barely accepts those initiatives to use
> >> their
> >>> legal entity for invoicing (at least that's how I see it, probably
> there
> >>> are some implications involving responsibilities).
> >>>
> >>> That makes a whole world of difference because ASF is pretty passively
> >>> involved in this relation, not actively promoting anyone except of
> doing
> >>> the invoicing and handling payments (which I think is perfectly fine
> with
> >>> the non-profit status of it as ASF does a lot of invoicing already).
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:01 PM Christofer Dutz <
> >> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Jarek,
> >>>>
> >>>> But I still can't believe this could be legal for the ASF to do. I
> >> would
> >>>> love it to be ok, but right now it's even problematic to even have
> >> links to
> >>>> commercial offerings regarding Apache projects, because that would
> >> endanger
> >>>> our non-profit status. I just can't believe something like this could
> >> even
> >>>> be possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> >>>> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2022 17:53
> >>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> >>>>
> >>>> And a comment - if, and only if ASF could become the Fiscal Host for
> >> all
> >>>> those initiatives and it would be legal from the point of view of the
> >>>> bylaws of the Foundation, this concern of yours Chris should be
> >>>> automatically handled:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I mean with most companies in the Industry, they only work with
> >>>>> preferred
> >>>> vendors and they have a limited amount of “slots” on that list. So,
> >> they
> >>>> usually have business relationships with the bigger companies. If we
> >> don’t
> >>>> have a good open-source Support Inc. able to fill one of these slots,
> >> it
> >>>> doesn’t matter how many there are.
> >>>>
> >>>> The invoicing would be directly with the ASF - even though ASF would
> >> not
> >>>> be "owning" the relationship. Yeah. That precludes any "Agreement"
> >> with the
> >>>> ASF, but maybe there are a number of companies that would be open to
> >> the
> >>>> approach that they are supporting an initiative from a PMC but the
> >> invoice
> >>>> goes to the ASF. This is even better that a separate legal entity with
> >> ASF
> >>>> blessing (but of course there are many legal/responsibility etc.
> >>>> questions such setup involves - which is more on the legal side).
> >>>>
> >>>> J.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:43 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What does it mean to “enable” marketing? If that’s the same level
> >> of
> >>>>> marketing we get at the ASF already, then it’s dead in the water for
> >>>>> most projects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The best is to show an example here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the initiative I recently supported
> >>>>> https://opencollective.com/devfest-for-ukraine/ (And I heartily
> >>>>> recommend it - I know the organizers and they are very legit).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Enable marketing" in the sense that OpenCollective pre-vets their
> >>>>> collectives and you can market it yourself via social media and other
> >>>>> channels and it is not a scam. I think anyone running any kind of
> >>>>> collective like that (including PMCs and others) are responsible for
> >>>>> their own marketing, using the networking, social media, tools,
> >> direct
> >>>>> outreach etc. Expecting that someone will do it for you is not going
> >> to
> >>>> work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Having a landing page like that which is hosted with a reputable
> >>>>> organisation that pre-vets their campaigns and one that you can see
> >>>>> who the people are, you can see who else is supporting it is a
> >>>>> fantastic marketing tool that you can use. And this is really good
> >>>>> value that such organisations can bring.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> J.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:28 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What does it mean to “enable” marketing? If that’s the same level of
> >>>>>> marketing we get at the ASF already, then it’s dead in the water for
> >>>>>> most projects.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> —
> >>>>>> Matt Sicker
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On May 9, 2022, at 10:22, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think the non-profit charity aspect definitely would disqualify
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>> ASF
> >>>>>>> as being one of these Fiscal Hosts. But in general, it does sound
> >>>>>>> like
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> could be something usable, just not using the ASF as Fiscal Host.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am not sure to be honest. From at least looking at the
> >>>>>>> description of what Fiscal Host is, this is mainly about "legal
> >>>>>>> entity", "being able to issue invoices" and that's about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Even if you look at the fiscal hosts that the open-collective
> >>>>>>> manages,
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> have a 501(C) US-Based charity foundation as one of the fiscal
> >> hosts:
> >>>>>>> https://opencollective.com/foundation - which I think is the
> >> same
> >>>>>> regime
> >>>>>>> as the ASF.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See:
> >>>>>>> https://docs.opencollective.com/help/fiscal-hosts/fiscal-hosts
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:11 PM Christofer Dutz <
> >>>>>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Roman and Jarek,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> well the reason I was proposing something new was that I did try
> >>>>>>>> to participate with some of the existing initiatives like
> >>>>>>>> Tidelift, but
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> showed a great amount of disinterest. It seems as if only the
> >>>>>>>> projects
> >>>>>> big
> >>>>>>>> enough are considered worthy of being supported. The entity I
> >>>>>>>> proposed should be available for any project, no matter what
> >> size it
> >>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, it could just be a new company and wouldn't need to have the
> >>>>>> blessing
> >>>>>>>> of the ASF, but then there would be yet another Support Inc.
> >>>>>> Effectively
> >>>>>>>> all splitting the cake up into smaller pieces hereby keeping each
> >>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> not reaching the breaking point in which things would start
> >>>>>>>> running on their own.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's why I thought: Something with explicit ties to the ASF
> >>>>>>>> could benefit from being considered the “official” way to get
> >>>>>>>> support or at
> >>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>> the way the ASF considers to be absolutely in-line with its
> >>>>>>>> policies
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> might help reaching the critical mass needed to work.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I mean with most companies in the Industry, they only work with
> >>>>>> preferred
> >>>>>>>> vendors and they have a limited amount of “slots” on that list.
> >>>>>>>> So,
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> usually have business relationships with the bigger companies. If
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>> don’t
> >>>>>>>> have a good open-source Support Inc. able to fill one of these
> >>>>>>>> slots,
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter how many there are.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In general, I’d be happy, if an existing company could provide
> >>>>>>>> this service, but as I mentioned, my condition for accepting this
> >>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>> solution
> >>>>>>>> would be that every project wanting to do so, could do their
> >>>>>>>> business though them. Tidelift has proven to only select the
> >> filet
> >>>>>>>> parts, which
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> consider inacceptable for being considered as being a solution to
> >>>>>>>> this problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And to what Jarek said. I think the non-profit charity aspect
> >>>>>> definitely
> >>>>>>>> would disqualify the ASF as being one of these Fiscal Hosts. But
> >>>>>>>> in general, it does sound like they could be something usable,
> >>>>>>>> just not
> >>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>> the ASF as Fiscal Host.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2022 11:49
> >>>>>>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Very good points Roman. I think it's great to think about it with
> >>>>>>>> the building business "mindset" - this is the only way it can
> >>>>>>>> actually
> >>>>>> succeed.
> >>>>>>>> But maybe we do not have to go this way.
> >>>>>>>> The #1 seems much more attractive and there are other options.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think Open Collective is as close as it can be to the 'Apache
> >> Way"
> >>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>> it comes to enablers and the economy of scale is already there I
> >>>> think.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've been participating with several campaigns now through them -
> >>>>>>>> they seem to be they don't even want to "own the relation"
> >> between
> >>>>>>>> the "collective individuals" and "sponsors".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They seem to be pretty much 100% of what I consider as "enabler"
> >> -
> >>>>>>>> https://opencollective.com/how-it-works:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * Managing payments and admin
> >>>>>>>> * enabling easy marketing and promotion
> >>>>>>>> * basically enabling a group of people to establish effective,
> >>>>>> repeating
> >>>>>>>> campaigns and building long-lasting relationships generally
> >>>>>>>> focused on "doing good".
> >>>>>>>> * the "collectives" decide themselves on the scope and conditions
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> campaign they run - but eventually it's all based on the
> >>>>>>>> reputation of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> people who run the collective to be trusted by the supporters.
> >>>>>>>> * you can organize your "collective" there without legally
> >>>>>> incorporating
> >>>>>>>> it (by a group of individuals) and get anyone to support it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think the only remaining question is - how feasible and
> >>>>>>>> attractive
> >>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>> "collective" might be for Sponsoring companies.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And there is an interesting option that might be actually a good
> >>>>>> response
> >>>>>>>> to it and a way how such a collective **might** get reputation.
> >>>>>>>> The Apache Software Foundation **could** become a "Fiscal Host"
> >>>>>>>> there
> >> https://docs.opencollective.com/help/fiscal-hosts/fiscal-hosts
> >>>> - i.e.
> >>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>> entity that holds the funds and manages the legal/bank account
> >> but
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> not involved in any way with the contracts and decisions of the
> >>>>>>>> "collective".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A fiscal host is a legal company or individual who holds a
> >>>>>>>> Collective’s funds in their bank account and can generate
> >> invoices
> >>>>>>>> and receipts for supporters and sponsors. You can think of a
> >>>>>>>> fiscal host as an umbrella organization for the Collectives in
> >> it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think such "Fiscal Host" is precisely the "missing" link we did
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> so far. Of course it needs to be checked from the legal side -
> >>>>>>>> what is
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> responsibility and whether it is in-line with the ASF bylaws and
> >>>>>> mission,
> >>>>>>>> but seems like becoming "Fiscal Host" in open collective is
> >>>>>>>> precisely
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> the ASF could do. And then it gets even better, because such
> >>>>>>>> Fiscal
> >>>>>> Host
> >>>>>>>> might host mutliple collectives:
> >>>>>>>> - one per PMC for example - why not
> >>>>>>>> - "Security at the ASF" - for multiple projects
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And many others. The nice thing there is that IF the ASF will not
> >>>>>> charge
> >>>>>>>> the collectives, OpenCollective does not charge their 15% cut.
> >> And
> >>>>>>>> any collective can "apply" to be hosted by a fiscal host. I am
> >> not
> >>>>>>>> sure
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> are the rules and policies there, but I believe the collectives
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>>> "approved" by the ASF host. And this is as close to "endorsement"
> >>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>> actually a legal responsibility as it can be. The "sponsors"
> >> would
> >>>>>>>> deal with the ASF that would issue the invoices, while the
> >>>>>>>> "business relationship" of Sponsor will be with the collective
> >>>> organizers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This really sounds rather cool if we could make ASF become such a
> >>>>>> Fiscal
> >>>>>>>> Host.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Few claims they do:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * "Unlike other crowdfunding platforms, Open Collective is
> >>>>>>>> designed for ongoing collaborations. That means your funding and
> >>>>>>>> community of
> >>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>> doesn’t disappear after a single campaign, or if the initial
> >>>>>>>> organizers move on.
> >>>>>>>> * "Our code is fully transparent and open source, just like our
> >>>> budget.
> >>>>>>>> You own your data: we’ll never sell it or lock you in."
> >>>>>>>> * "Open Collective uniquely combines a powerful tech platform
> >> with
> >>>>>> fiscal
> >>>>>>>> hosting, enabling Collectives to raise and spend money without
> >>>>>>>> legally incorporating, worrying about taxes, or opening a bank
> >>>> account."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:16 AM Roman Shaposhnik
> >>>>>>>> <ro...@shaposhnik.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Chris, thanks for sort of reviving the old thread I had before
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> war: I'm slowly coming back to my more regular Open Source life
> >>>>>>>>> from all the craziness of the past two months. Because of that,
> >>>>>>>>> there's not much to report back -- but I will share a few points
> >>>>>>>>> and comment on a few of yours. Hope this will help move things
> >>>> along.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 3:11 PM Christofer Dutz
> >>>>>>>>> <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> now that the Aprils Fool Joke has worn off a bit, I think I can
> >>>>>>>>>> post
> >>>>>>>>> this here. I at first suggested this in the board list before
> >>>>>>>>> April 1st, as I wanted to make sure this hasn’t been wiped off
> >>>>>>>>> the table as a silly idea before.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Turns out that I didn’t get a single “silly idea” response.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As you all might know I have been working on finding ways to
> >>>>>>>>>> finance my
> >>>>>>>>> work on open-source, but in an open-source way that others can
> >>>>>>>>> also profit from what I might find out.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There are some projects that managed to form or attract
> >>>>>>>>>> companies to
> >>>>>>>>> grow around them. These usually don’t have problems finding
> >> funds
> >>>>>>>>> to finance further development.
> >>>>>>>>>> However, we also have a large number of projects that are not
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>> big, or
> >>>>>>>>> a large number of people working on our projects, but don’t work
> >>>>>>>>> for those companies.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, these people are generally relying on finding contracts
> >>>>>> themselves.
> >>>>>>>>> This usually is problematic as many larger companies don’t do
> >>>>>>>>> business with individuals.
> >>>>>>>>>> Also is it often tricky to get the legal documents and
> >> contracts
> >>>>>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>>>> and then not even talking about how long payments usually take.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Another thing is that the ASF is a non-profit organization and
> >>>>>>>>>> therefore
> >>>>>>>>> it’s challenging to advertise commercial offerings around Apache
> >>>>>>>> projects.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As an example: One of the things I found out with my
> >>>>>>>>>> crowd-funding
> >>>>>>>>> experiment is that this doesn’t work. Admittedly I wasn’t
> >>>>>>>>> expecting it to work. Companies just can’t donate large amounts
> >>>>>>>>> of money without any assurances. But I did learn one thing: My
> >>>>>>>>> crowd-funding experiment was in a way the most successful thing
> >> I
> >>>> did.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The thing was, that I listed up things that could be on the
> >>>>>>>>>> roadmap and
> >>>>>>>>> I added a price-tag to them. This is one thing an Apache project
> >>>>>>>>> just couldn’t do. So even if I didn’t get a single cent in
> >>>>>>>>> donations for my work, I was approached by multiple companies
> >>>>>>>>> willing to finance individual campaigns, but with a normal
> >>>> consulting contract.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now there are also companies like Tidelift, that want to close
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> gap.
> >>>>>>>>> However, we are still a bit unsure how to align the interest of
> >>>>>>>>> that company with the values of the ASF. And there’s the fact
> >>>>>>>>> that not everyone is able to profit from Tidelift. I for example
> >>>>>>>>> tried reaching out to them several times for offering commercial
> >>>>>>>>> PLC4X support, but the only responses I got, were people wanting
> >>>>>>>>> to discuss how my business could profit from using more
> >>>>>>>>> open-source ;-) So for me Tidelift is not an option as not
> >> everyone
> >>>> can use it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now let me get to my idea:
> >>>>>>>>>> What If there was a separate legal entity closely related to
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>> ASF
> >>>>>>>>> (Let’s call it “Support Inc.” for now). I would even propose
> >> that
> >>>>>>>>> the oversight entity for Support Inc. should be the ASF board.
> >>>>>>>>> This would assure the company is perfectly in-line with the ASF
> >> and
> >>>> its values.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> First of all, I 100% agree with Sam -- there's absolutely 0
> >>>>>>>>> reason that I see these two entities should have (structurally!)
> >>>>>>>>> any more ties than ASF and let's say Cloudera. If you disagree
> >> on
> >>>>>>>>> that point strongly -- now would be a good time to list all your
> >>>> reasons for why.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Back to building an independent business: my hypothesis back
> >> when
> >>>>>>>>> I started the Tidelift thread is that we basically have two
> >> choices:
> >>>>>>>>> 1. piggy back off of somebody who is already doing a similar
> >>>>>>>>> kind of a business (and convince them to tweak it to be fully
> >>>>>>>>> aligned with ASF's vision) 2. have a brand new business
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This thread of yours seem to be focused on #2 so I'll stay with
> >>>>>>>>> that (and will comment on #1 in a separate thread).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'll start with saying that I've been talking to a LOT of my VC
> >>>>>>>>> and OSS Foundations friends about #2 lately and the consensus
> >>>>>>>>> seems to be that it is all about the economics of bootstrapping
> >>>>>>>>> this kind of a business. The economics simply doesn't seem to
> >>>>>>>>> work out (at least not in the US market) until you hit a certain
> >>>>>>>>> number of customers AND committers in what, effectively, can be
> >>>>>>>>> described as a marketplace. We can debated at what # of both of
> >>>>>>>>> these you can hope to be at least somewhat revenue neutral, but
> >>>>>>>>> it is pretty clear that the numbers are significant.
> >> Effectively,
> >>>> you need seed money.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This kind of seed money can either come from (please add to the
> >>>>>>>>> list if I missed anything):
> >>>>>>>>> 1. large Co's (FANG, etc.)
> >>>>>>>>> 2. traditional VCs
> >>>>>>>>> 3. non-traditional VCs
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #1 I am not hopeful -- and if there's anyone on this list who
> >> can
> >>>>>>>>> help move a needle in that direction I'd love to hear about that
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #2 the feedback universally is "you're proposing to build a
> >>>>>>>>> marketplace, there's a few already (e.g. Tidelif), please
> >> explain
> >>>>>>>>> why yours will be any better/different/etc. -- if you can't at
> >>>>>>>>> least go talk to existing ones and try to join forces"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #3 (this could be something as crazy as Elon Musk seeding it
> >> btw)
> >>>>>>>>> is where I'm focusing right now (plus a bit of "go talk to them"
> >>>>>>>>> from #2)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At any rate -- until there's a concrete proposal about where
> >> this
> >>>>>>>>> kind of money can come from -- I don't think we will be making
> >>>>>>>>> any progress.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But suppose we (and by "we" here I mean a group of individuals
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>> the ASF who would want to step up as founders of something like
> >>>>>>>>> this) did get some money -- we will have to have some rules of
> >>>>>>>>> engagement with the ASF.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That seems to be the rest of your points:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Individuals could sign up on Support Inc’s website for
> >> providing
> >>>>>>>>> commercial services around Apache projects. These services could
> >>>>>>>>> be Consulting, Feature development, Training, Commercial
> >> Support.
> >>>>>>>>>> On this site a user could also add possible feature-development
> >>>>>>>>> campaigns with a price-tag attached, just like I did on my
> >> website.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If a company wants to finance a feature, get support,
> >>>>>>>>>> consulting, or
> >>>>>>>>> training around an Apache project, this would be the well-known
> >>>>>>>>> website somebody would go to first.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Support Inc. would provide the contracts
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Obvious point, but this is exactly where the liability starts
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> it needs to be managed (for which seed $$$ is required).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent
> >>>>>>>>> 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yup. The economy of scale will obviously help, but not until we
> >>>>>>>>> hit 100s of participants in our marketplace.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Also, would Support Inc. be a bigger company the customer would
> >>>>>>>>>> be doing
> >>>>>>>>> business with, which would probably ease the problem of getting
> >>>>>>>>> into the companies with Chris Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Business development/marketing for Support Inc. will also
> >> require
> >>>>>> seed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The contracts would be between the Support Inc. and the
> >>>>>>>>>> customer, and
> >>>>>>>>> the customer would pay to Support Inc. The developer would have
> >> a
> >>>>>>>>> contract with Support Inc. and be paid from this but give
> >> Support
> >>>> Inc.
> >>>>>>>>> a certain percentage of the contact to cover its expenses (But
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>> contrast to other pure for-profit companies, this cut would be a
> >>>>>>>>> lot
> >>>>>>>> less than usual).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Again -- typical marketplace mechanics -- all great but (cue
> >> tons
> >>>>>>>>> of MBA articles on Uber, etc.) requires "buying" at least one
> >> end
> >>>>>>>>> of it (typically with VC money) first.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now a developer could probably choose from different models,
> >>>>>>>>>> where he
> >>>>>>>>> gets paid instantly (but then give Support Inc. a bigger cut of
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> profits) or wait for the customer to pay.
> >>>>>>>>>> The services the new company would provide, would be taking
> >> care
> >>>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>> payments, the legal issues and provide the infrastructure for
> >>>>>>>>> finding commercial support offerings.
> >>>>>>>>>> And if people know this is something integrated into the
> >> general
> >>>>>>>>> open-source ecosystem, I assume people would probably try less
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>> screw with as they know it might backfire PR-wise, just like
> >>>>>>>>> dragging the ASF to court wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the company earns money, it could become a sponsor of the
> >> ASF.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you’re now not going to point at me laughing because I
> >>>>>>>>>> like the
> >>>>>>>>> idea.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think:
> >>>>>>>>> 0. I am *really* excited about this -- to a point where I'd
> >> love
> >>>>>>>>> to be one of the founder's in a business like that, but we need
> >>>>>>>>> at least a few more 1. I DO NOT think it is viable as an
> >>>>>>>>> "organic growth" type of a business -- hence it'll required seed
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Putting both of these together -- for now I'll focus on trying
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>> finding an existing marketplace we can mold to our needs. I'm
> >>>>>>>>> still bullish on Tidelift, but I need to re-start a few
> >>>>>>>>> discussions with them on particulars.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Roman.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
