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

[Simon Budig]

Hi Louis, Hi all

Louis Desjardins (louis.desjardins at gmail.com) wrote:
> There are quite a few informations to share here, before we can actually
> state whether an idea is "exceedingly undesirable" or not.

It was basically a consensus at the discussion at the last LGM, that we
want to *try* to continue with the reimbursements, and also that we
*try* to avoid membership fees and similiar ideas. This is where this
wording comes from.

> [Bank account, invoices]
> Asking those 2 question is answering them.

It is telling, that in the the discussion at the LGM most people were
blissfully ignorant of the existing infrastructure. Yes, I am happy that
I don't have to care or deal with this aspect of LGM. And I also
certainly don't want to get involved there. But I can see that the point
that Nathan made in his mail ("Corporate donors expect to deal with
"known quantities": organizations with an easily-verifiable public track
record."). AQDPLL is a non-googleable entity and I have no idea how I
would verify, that AQDPLL is the official contact for all things related
LGM finances. Nobody of the people attending the future-of-lgm meeting
could provide any insights into its operation, not even on the very
basic level on how much funds are currently available.

We can discuss the existance vs. non-existance of bank accounts all day,
but this is a side-discussion that avoids discussing this core problem.

I'll emphasize that this is not a problem for *me*, because I do trust
you: I know Louis and I have no doubts that all your actions and
decisions are guided by the best interest for LGM.

However, not every potential sponsor has the privilege of knowing you
and I think it would be bad if our only answer to questions about AQDPLL
would be "trust Louis, he is a good guy.".

> *My first question was about the reimbursement itself**(I strongly believe
> it is at least worth we give it some thoughts, after taking notes of the
> facts below)*
> 
>    - We reimburse between 15 and 20 people each year. We have over 150
>    participants to LGM each year (a number that can go up dramatically in some
>    LGM, and nonetheless the number of people asking for a reimbursement is
>    rather stable).
>    - 10-15% of the participants need (or at least ask) for financial
>    support.
>    - How many of these people would not make it to LGM if there was no
>    financial help available?
>    - In other words, how many really "need" the financial support?
>    - Would there absence be a threat to LGM?
>    - Arguably, a fair part of the sponsored people are speakers at LGM.
>    However we have 60-80 talks at LGM. Subsequently, some (tough) questions
>    arise: how many speakers at LGM are also motivated by the fact that their
>    trip may be reimbursed? Who in that group would have not come if there were
>    no reimbursement? What would be the effects on LGM?
>    - Would there absence reduce the appeal of LGM to others, and be a
>    threat to its overall quality?
>    - To find out, we have to ask those people.
>    - We can also ask ourselves if the absence of some people ever had a
>    negative impact on LGM, whether they are helped financially or not.
>    - There is no hidden intention. We only need to try to figure out the
>    impact of such a decision (if we would in the end make a decision not te
>    reimburse any longer).
>    - Is there something wrong at trying to find out an important fact that
>    could lead to a better overall understanding of the situation? I don’t
>    think so. The answers matter.

You don't give any answers to the questions you pose, so I guess they're
as unknown to you as to me. Also, it seems impossible to me to find a
reasonable metric to judge the impact on quality/attendance of LGM.

In that sense *I* consider these questions un-answerable. 15-20 people
is a number that is surprisingly low to me, but then I myself am
sponsored by the gimp project directly (i.e. not involving AQDPLL), so I
shouldn't be too surprised.

For me the answer to the question lies in a slightly different posing of
the question: What is the tone we want to establish for LGM? What is the
atmosphere and culture we want to radiate to the (potential) attendees?

I want LGM to be an open and inclusive event. I want an atmosphere where
people are exchanging ideas and techniques, and I want to have
interesting people there to get as much input as possible, regardless of
their abilities to find funding for themselves.

The promise of funding attendees is - in an idealistic view - a key
element here. But obviously this funding can only be done *if* we have
solid means of getting the actual funds.

> *About the financing*

[Snipping lots of questions I am not competent to answer]

> Our sources of financing are not under control at present time and this can
> be considered a threat to LGM. The idea behind the membership and the
> attendance fee is to show the good example from the start. The LGM has a
> community that support it. We have so many members that pay their annual
> membership. Say 200 members at $100 each, that’s already $20,000. That’s a
> good start in my view. Once you are a member, you are entitled to lower
> fees at the conference. If you gather another 20 or 30k at the conference,
> you secure a budget of 40 to 50k every year, before you actually arrive to
> LGM...
[...]
> *Hence, my second question:*
> Could we consider putting together an annual membership fee?

Frankly, personally I will never be a paying member of LGM unless given
a *very* good reason (which I do not see yet).

I attend LGM in my free time, it is not paid by my company, it is purely
a volunteer effort. I invest time in developing Gimp as well as
fostering its community. I wholeheartedly support LGM with ideas,
outreach and involvement.

I feel that I invest a lot into LGM (considering Gimp a part of LGM)
already and it rubs me the wrong way to be asked to pay money to be able
to do more investment into LGM in the future.

To me that is not acceptable. This is self-exploitation at its best:
"Oh, you invested significant parts of the last 20 years into this free
graphics software thing, why not invest your money in it as well? You
will meet interesting people once a year then."

I obviously don't know what percentage of LGM attendees is there on
company time (and I don't really care), but I know for a fact that there
are more people who are there only because of their personal enthusiasm,
and I fear that we'd lose a significant part of these people.

Note that I consider these people extremely important for the quality of
LGM. Without them LGM in my perception is doomed.


Thats it from me for now. I wish I could provide some more input on
how-to-get-more-money - but I fail at that even on a very local level
with our local hackspace. I just hope that we can find people with more
experience and interest for doing this.

Thanks,
        Simon

-- 
              simon at budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/