paying-the-piper
paying-the-piper copied to clipboard
beeware
Create a funding foundation
It would be possible to create a funding foundation with the explicit goal of sponsoring development efforts against specific criteria. It could also award prizes for community achievement to recognise major contributions from individuals. It would be possible to fund this through donations/bequests, such as bitcoin donations, direct dollar donations etc. This might help provide greater visibility for those involved in contributing to software but who don't have a clear funding source. It might also be able to fund sabbaticals or sponsor student research where there is an open source benefit.
Isn't this effectively what the Software Freedom Conservancy is? Or do you see some way in which the SFC's mission differs from what you're suggesting?
@freakboy3742 The SFC doesn't provide any funding to projects, it is an umbrella organisation that makes it easier for projects to receive funding. The SFC receives funds on behalf of its member projects so those projects don't have to do all the leg work of becoming a non-profit/charitable associations.
Funds directed to SFC projects go to those projects and the SFC does not take a cut. Funds directed to the SFC itself is for the running of the SFC, not for funding its projects.
I believe @tleeuwenburg is talking about an organisation that is specifically for funding projects.
@freakboy3742 receiving funds on behalf of projects vs funding projects is only a difference of who decides which projects get the funds. Is your whole point about having an org that people just donate to generally who then decides where to give the funds?
+1 for this, see also #39 where @dferber90 mentioned a similar idea.
Where does the money come from? Who are the major donors for something like this, and how much could be realistically raised? Some ideas:
- Corporate donors
- Individual contributions
- Philanthropic foundations
Anything else I'm missing?
I think people would be happier to pay their dues to an organisation which: -- Allocated money to projects on a roughly annual basis -- Had a transparent approach to funding allocation -- Was focused on a specific area (e.g. Django, Python, Education) or community (or maintained separate specific funds) -- Maintained independence from the funded projects and was seen to be an objective entity
To me the SFC is very high level, and is created to represent member projects rather than to represent community demands. It provides services to projects and seems to have a very general mission. It's not something I could get behind, myself.
However, if I could contribute $100 a year into a large fund which would be directed into an area I cared about through an yearly awards cycle, I would be much more interested as the direct benefits are very clear.
@tleeuwenburg so like the Python Foundation, the Linux Foundation, OSGeo, Open Stack Foundation… right? the list of existing ones is long.
@wolftune There's a lot of overlap, but no, not exactly like those. Those groups, to the extent I can determine, seek to be general governance and organisational groups without a clear focus on financial sponsorship. I reviewed the web pages of the PSF, The Linux Foundation and OSGeo to validate my preconceptions, but I may have missed something. Each maintains some kind of grant program whereby funding is provided. However, the scale of that funding appears at first glance to be generally limited.
In order to have the kind of impact I think this group is looking for, the amount of money involved would need to be some multiple of a developer's salary, or at least sufficient to cover university scholarships (at least so far as how these things are organised in Australia -- perhaps academic collaboration is 'cheaper' or 'more expensive' elsewhere). I would rather look at grants which cover 6 months of professional engineering salary or more.
In my view, the smaller grants would be less valued by potential contributors than larger grants. The goal would be to gain sufficient critical mass from contributions to make a real difference to a project towards measurable goals.
If a thousand people joined up for $100 per year, that's a nominal engineer's salary. That would be something I think would attract a great deal of interest from projects, and that people might be willing to put their $$ behind.
I think "the community" could attract a goodly number of individuals contributing an annual amount, and some smaller number of commercial companies willing to donate larger amounts. If some money were set aside for effective administration, the organisation could also pursue government grants and basically put more energy into reaching out into the wider world to do grant writing etc. For example, I've seen this kind of leveraging of grants work for conferences before.
I think it would be easier to attract funding for an obviously high-impact organisation than for something with a smaller ambition.
@tleeuwenburg the idea of large numbers of donors paying long-term salaries is something I think everyone recognizes as valuable. My work on Snowdrift.coop aims to achieve that. I don't think any of the many existing foundations are lacking awareness of this issue. I don't think lack of funding-focused mission or lack of foundations is the issue. The existing foundations would happily fund lots of developers if they had the resources (and Linux Foundation does fund Linus at least among others).
The open question is entirely about why people aren't already donating enough. And Snowdrift.coop's answer is the Snowdrift Dilemma. There are fundamental reasons why everyone doesn't just unilaterally donate all they can, and a foundation that just asks them to do so doesn't address this.
I just am very skeptical that this hypothetical new foundation would be distinct enough to change anything. Potential donors already have foundations to donate to, and I don't see a proposal here for something that would really change any of the incentives over the status quo. I think the best way to answer this, if people think there's really something there, is to actually ask the folks at the existing foundations about their experience and scope and whether they think a new foundation would be filling a niche that isn't already covered.
@wolftune The success of Ruby Together seems like a very strong argument for experimentation in this area. It has $10k/month in recurring donations. Surely Python/Django could achieve something similar since Python is more widely used than Ruby.
@wolftune thanks for your comments, and for your work on Snowdrift.coop. I think the problem is outlined well on that site, although I don't personally subscribe to your approach in fixing it. I wish you the greatest success though, I would love to be wrong.
In my view, the new hypothetical foundation offers clarity of purpose. Money in = projects out. I don't see that anywhere else. People who donate want clarity over how the money will be used, and want to know it will be used efficiently towards some output they support.
I think your skepticism is entirely warranted, by the way. I can only really speak to what would trigger me to donate. In general, I have donated to things I've understood, like kickstarter campaigns, specific charity drives, or to organisations which very clearly outline what they deliver to the community. My own donation habits tend to be one-off donations, but I would consider a recurring donation / membership if the financial handlings were very transparent and clearly being directed into useful areas.
@ariddell thanks for that link, that's a great resource to know about!
In my view, the new hypothetical foundation offers clarity of purpose. Money in = projects out. I don't see that anywhere else.
I do agree that element is essential, and we're definitely including that and focusing on that at Snowdrift.coop. I agree that various foundations don't make that focus clear, but I think lots of major projects themselves make that clear already (though maybe could be clearer)on their own project websites and outreach.