[LGM] Request For Comments - reorganizing financial tasks for LGM

[Louis Desjardins]

Hi,

The main issue is securing the budget in a sustainable manner. The
structure is another debate. I believe I have elaborated enough on that
topic. Coming at the discussion late and pretending not to have read and
understood a single (valid to me) point I raise is mind boggling to me.

The facts are stubborn.

   - Our structure has not produced a poor Pledgie campaign in 2016.
   - Our structure has not made Google not even bother to answer our emails.

Not even trying to answer the following questions is a strange attitude
into this discussion. If we were sitting together at the same table, I am
pretty sure that it would be very difficult to stare at me while I
formulate those valid questions, without even bothering answering them.
It’s not big noise at the origin, with fearing of *"flame war"* (what flame
war?) and making the gratuitous assertion those ideas "*seem exceedingly
undesirable*" (have you read my previous long email?) that will make a
better decision arise.

Again:

   1. Is it reasonable to continue the reimbursements (read carefully my
   long email on that, there are sub-questions)? It’s not an obvious answer.
   It’s a difficult question. We need to answer it, and we need to keep track
   of the rationale.
   2. If, after reviewing carefully the explanations and facts we decide
   that no, the case is closed.
   3. If, after reviewing carefully the explanations and facts we decide
   that yes, we are consequently answering yes to the need to secure the
   budget in full knowledge that as of now we have had no control over the
   height of the money we raise each year. This year, total income was 1,300
   USD.
   4. Ways of securing the budget in a sustainable manner:
*membership*, *attendance
   fees* (please read again my email if you haven’t done so), putting
   together an *annual report for LGM*, establishing contacts with other
   associations that have supported us in the past such as PSF and FSF,
   establishing contacts with the corporate world such as Google and others.
   5. Revise our actual structure and make the changes we want, or create a
   new structure if we find the actual one cannot do the job from Canada. For
   this, we’d need to establish our needs and look in the nuts & bolts of the
   work.

I propose a structured way of securing LGM budget over years.

I believe this has to be discussed in the best possible manner.

If someone has a better idea, please put it on the table so we can also
discuss it.

Meanwhile, I would encourage people to read for themselves the valid info
that is on the table and from then make an answer to the first question. If
we answer yes, then see how we can enrich the discussion about the
membership and from then, about a possible attendance fee.

I suggest we enlarge the discussion and make a *public poll* about
membership to LGM and attendance fees, if we are to continue reimbursing
people (read: if we are going to need a sustainable budget). The questions
in the poll should be as precise as possible, including numbers. The poll
would follow an information campaign. People should have the time to
express their views. We should gather as much input as we possibly can.

It’s one thing to want something happen and another to make it happen.

Louis




2016-05-20 6:59 GMT-04:00 Femke Snelting <snelting at collectifs.net>:

> Thank you for your precise proposal Nate, apologies for almost missing the
> 20 May deadline for comments:
>
> A. Should we try to make a change in the way LGM currently fiscally
>> operates?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> After 11 years of LGM (!!) I think it is time to think ahead and develop a
> more sustainable way to do fundraising, reimbursement and financial
> planning for the meetings to come. This is relatively urgent with Brazil
> 2017 coming up, but it is also an occasion to gain transparency and
> stability as a project that is apparently here to stay.
>
> Louis has been taking on the responsibility for finances from the
> beginning (2006). Out of principle and care for the longevity of LGM, I
> think we need to share the responsibility. It would be better if there was
> more than one person with access to the LGM account and subsequently more
> than one person with detailed insight in our finances. Working with an
> umbrella organisation seems a constructive way to evolve out of this
> situation.
>
> I think that the proposed change in the way LGM currently operates will
> increase transparency and stability. This will have positive effects on the
> way we can internally organise, and on our relations to the world around
> it. It will hopefully allow us to do better planning (including eventually
> changing the way reimbursements work) and fundraising (developing long term
> strategies for fundraising). It will not take away the labor, but it will
> potentially make the labor more effective, and easier to distribute.
>
> B. If so, what umbrella organization should we work with?
>> (current proposal: Software in the Public Interest)
>>
>
> We have not yet found a non-US based umbrella organisation, which I think
> could be useful for LGM. Otherwise, I am fine with SPI or Software
> Conservancy, though I would like to hear back from them first in response
> to our questions first, before making that decision.
>
> C. What specific conditions should be met by the umbrella organization?
>> (see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LGM_Funding_Notes)
>>
>
> My main concern is whether there would be individual or regional
> blacklists that might make reimbursements for certain participants harder
> or impossible.
>
>
>
> Femke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20160520/10bf72b1/attachment.html>