Dave Fisher has posted a valuable comment while I was writing this. I completely support his views on this topic.
In addition, it seems to me that you propose a change in how the ASF itself works. This is not the place to do that. I suggest you take such discussion to the d...@community.apache.org mailing list. In addition, even though there is a complaint about it such thing, this proposal is also a case of wanting someone [else] to do something. That will never get anywhere here. Any collection of funds for targeted purposes and then commitments to delivering on those targets is *not* going to happen here. That is a business activity, whether or not there is profit. Members of the ASF board have already stated while that will not be done. More in-line. Again, I do not speak for the ASF or the AOO PMC. I do notice that, although members of the PMC have also participated in this list discussion, I see no consideration on the part of the PMC itself. - Dennis > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 16:16 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute! > > Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions. > I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers > to nothing happens. > > I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at > mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors. > > What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache > is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game > changing model in general. > > > For me the model should respect: > > # Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for > developers but for tasks / actions) > > # nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the > organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.) [orcmid] The ASF is not *just* a non-profit organization. It is a *charity*. As part of being a charity, there is no "investor," only contributors, and contributors might be able to target contributions to some area, there will not be delivering activities chosen by investors. It is unimaginable. You have to find a means that does not involve the ASF or any ASF project in such an arrangement. > > # Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same > infra if they whish.) [orcmid] Now you are proposing a different support and arrangement of Apache Infrastructure. That is too ill-defined and would not be the prerogative of a PMC anyhow. > > # Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all > commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.) [orcmid] Again, this is not going to happen. It is a form of commerce and the ASF considers this to be completely incompatible with its charter and mission in everything I can find. > > > This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I > am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered. > This is maybe 1% of a business plan. > > I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage > this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his > vision). > > > I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also > One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in > parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later > stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache. > A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be > difficult in times. You do well to be prepared. > > I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and > fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work. [orcmid] The *only* way to embark on this is to see how to create an external entity that arranges contributions to ASF Projects. You should find a way to do that. You must find people willing to contribute much effort. And people providing funds must have confidence in dealing with that entity. Changing the charter of the ASF is the wrong way around. If no one steps forward, then that shows this opportunity is not a constructive one. In the past, some people offered to make small donations (smaller that $50 USD). That is not effective. Another time, crowd funding and creation of a Kickstarter was discussed. No one did that. And last year, a conversation about an organization that could fund work was introduced. No action occurred. This conversation has continued over one week, and there are no actions. Perhaps the details that Peter Kovacs will produce something that others can work on. I assure you, the way ahead is not by expecting the ASF to somehow do the work. It is contributors to ASF Projects that do work. All volunteers. *Volunteers* If no one volunteers and takes steps, you have your answer. And Dave Fisher is correct. The AOO PMC is accountable to the ASF. While it should and does reflect the larger community, it cannot act outside of the ASF structure, even if some contributors (and maybe PMC members) prefer otherwise. - Dennis > > > Stay agile, keep Chalanging > > Peter > > On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote: > > Hi - > > > > Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following > statement as opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party. > > > >> and one more note: > >> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF > and the OpenOffice project. > >> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the > PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice. > > Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is > just like a shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC > memberships and AOO is but one of mine. > > > > In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit > and must not play favorites with anyone whether individual or > corporation. > > > > The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so. > > > > If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding > for third parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered > including keeping the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds, > auditing etc. This would be expensive. So, you can see that it just does > not happen. > > > > A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project > MUST be kept. > > > > I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other > employees/volunteers from that group who demonstrate merit here would > have my support for committer status. > > > > A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice. > That could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By > verification as a way to validate the downstream. > > > > Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo. > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com] > >>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and > >>> turn towards > >>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project > >>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure > >>> voluntary work of > >>> people that belive in the market name Open Office. > >> +1 > >> > >>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not > >>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure > of > >>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project > >>> Libre/Open Office is. > >> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct. > >> > >> But one thing should be quite clear: > >> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to > improve ourselves. > >> > >>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if > >>> not more > >>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF. > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> Peter has said a lot about what I find right. > >> > >> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these > things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming. > >> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in > the long run. > >> > >> > >> and one more note: > >> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF > and the OpenOffice project. > >> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the > PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice. > >> > >> > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Jörg > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
