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

Fri May 20 15:38:43 UTC 2016

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Louis Desjardins <
louis.desjardins at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I don't agree with this. I think that the structural ambiguities materially
complicate fundraising. The current arrangement gives you most of the
responsibility for financial matters and makes it very difficult to
delegate.

If we had an umbrella organization (or a dedicated organization for that
matter) with a defined relationship to the Meeting and an officially
chartered fundraising committee, I think that a lot of us would gladly
volunteer to serve on the committee and would be able to raise a decent
amount of money per year.

Also, out of curiousity, would you mind speculating as to what might have
so adversely affected the Pledgie campaign this year versus last year?

> 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.
>

I didn't say flame war; I said firestorm: not necessarily a combative
affair but a lot of unhappiness.

Money buys things, and an event with money is materially better than one
with less money and vastly better than one with no money. Travel
reimbursements aside, having zero budget forces inefficient time/money
trade-offs in operating the event itself and puts a disproportionate burden
on the people who have offered to help.

Back to reimbursements, I don't have the list in hand, but I think that
this is an important part of the event's mission. The world is materially
better off when the people who make free graphics software coordinate their
efforts, and it's unfair or at least impractical to expect the developers
to be the sole donors to this effort. Some projects, like FontForge, have
zero budget and can't pay airfare for their development teams. In 2014 and
2015, the Meeting was not yet part of my social circuit, and I would not
have come had my travel expenses not been paid. I imagine that I am not
alone in this regard.

> 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 think that attendance fees are counterproductive. Even if
non-compulsory, people will still feel pressured to pay them, and they
would have a negative effect on local walk-ins, which I think are important
to "localizing" the event.

I volunteer for helping to prepare the annual report and for the
fundraising efforts.

> 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.
>
> It would be nice to have a lot more information about people's preferences
and the like, but we need to value time, also. There's nothing wrong with
opening a discussion on interest in things like membership fees, but we
can't afford to push back fundraising activities by six months.

The status quo is raising money and reimbursing expenses, and until there
is a firm decision to end these activities, we need to work quickly to fix
what is broken for next year's event.

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c2d32939/attachment.html>