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

[Femke Snelting]

Hello Louis,

First of all, wishing you all strength for you and your family in what must be difficult times. My thoughts are with you.

I responded first to The Request For Comments since it was formulated following a scheduled meeting in London by a group of people concerned with the financial future of LGM (including myself). It was a pity that the meeting had to happen without your presence, this is why Michael Schumacher and me wrote to you right after it.

The process of trying to make a change is being done in good faith and with the information available. From your responses I gather that the main concern formulated in the RFC and in some of the responses to it, does not ring through. So I repeat:

It is very difficult to work together on bettering the financial situation of LGM when all information and access goes through a single person. The Request For Comments is a serious proposal to find a way to share responsibility for the financial management of LGM, as a community, and we assume that includes you. Since the move from Gnome to AQDPLL in 2011 there have been no structured financial reports to LGM or other forms of transparency in place, and the responsibility for fundraising and reimbursements has been carried by you only. We think this needs to change.

> *So, is our system broken?*

See above.

> *Where could we improve the system?*
>
>     - Securing the budget ahead of LGM, at the time we confirm the talks and
>     even, at the end of the LGM, for the next.
>     - Making sure the budget can cover 100% of the needs
>     - Accelerate the reimbursement process.
>     - Can we reimburse before LGM?

Your questions relate to improving the financing, not the "system". I agree that reimbursement before LGM is what we need to work towards on the long term. All of it has been on the agenda for a few years but we have not made any progress on any of these points. As you gathered by now, I think "the system" needs to evolve first, before we can together make it work better.
  
> *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)*

The question whether we should at all continue reimbursements was indeed discussed in London. The room was unanymously convinced (for different reasons) that they were very important for LGM so we decided to start from there.

For me personally, reimbursements are an essential and relatively simple form of solidarity that allows different people to the table. Currently they miss the point because we cannot promise reimbursements to take place at all, and in a reasonable time after the expenses were made. If we cannot change that situation, I would prefer to stop them; it troubles me as an organiser to invite people to the meeting without the ability to be clear about the conditions of their participation. It might explain my commitment to changing the way financing is done.

> *What are our sources of financing?*
>
>     1. Our community through Pledgie
>     2. Corporate sponsors (ex. Google)
>     3. Non-profit organisations private (ex. FSF, PSF)
>     4. Public organisation public (ex. EU, OIF)
>
> *What could be our sources of financing in the future?*
>
>     1. Our community through annual membership
>     2. Our community through attendance fees at LGM
>     3. Corporate sponsors (ex. Google)
>     4. Non-profit private organisations (ex. FSF, PSF)
>     5. Public organisations (ex. EU, OIF)

We briefly discussed other ways of getting funding but it was felt that the structure needed to be clarified first. We decided to concentrate the proposal on questions related. I have my opinions obviously ;-) but prefer to keep them for me until we made a decision on whether or not we will work with an umbrella organisation in the future.


all the best,


Femke