[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:37:46 +0100

On 2004-10-01 20:20:49 +0100 Alex Perez <address@hidden> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, MJ Ray wrote:
What are you basing this on? Why does everyone else seem to have "go away" emails from FSF, but no-one has posted one?
I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here, so I will ask you to re-phrase/re-iterate, because to me it makes no sense.

Several people have asserted that they think FSF does not want to do this role. I don't remember anyone posting FSF's answer to doing this role. I conclude that those people are either concealing useful information, or they are guessing.

You are more than welcome to question it, but what you seem to not understand is that this is a discussion about the possibility of creating this foundation. [...]

Then you need to specify what tasks need to be done and then decide whether the foundation is the best approach. All going "yes, foundation" and then deciding its role seems backwards to me. I assumed (wrongly) that you had already done this in messages to gnustep-dev which I hadn't seen.

If nobody really bother to use the FSF for doing the fundraising and the > promoting, it's quite logically because FSF and GNUstep has different goals, > and the FSF is not architectured to deal with that. [...]
Why is this logical? It hasn't happened, therefore this one reason is the cause?!?
It's logical because if the FSF were interested in accepting money for GNU sub-projects, they would have a mechanism for doing so on their website, which they do not.

The FSF has published calls for help with their web servers. They do not have mechanisms for other things which they are interested in doing on their web site. I think your reasoning for that conclusion is flawed.

I have no problem with Adam going to the FSF and asking themif they can collect and disseminate money to us, but frankly they would likely take a cut for their administrative costs.

If US law is like English law, they cannot do that. They must only use donations for their administrative costs or general use to pay their costs. (If it's not similar, tell me: it wouldn't be the first time I thought US law broken. ;-) )

Why would it not be FSF appointing people involved in the project, as present?
If the FSF is involved with taking money for us, it is inevitable that someone who has NOTHING to do with the GNUstep project would be handling money destined for us. That's his point. I'd also prefer not to have this situation be the case unless it buys us something.

If we pay the money into a bank ourselves, it is inevitable that someone who has NOTHING to do with the GNUstep project would be handling money for us. I'm sorry, but I don't want all our donations in a developer's matress.

More seriously, aren't there laws to ensure proper handling of donations?

That is how I have understood the explainations until today. According to those, the foundation will hire and fire developers,
and the foundation must have non-developer managers to be seen as legitimate.
Uh, no. Keep pulling stuff out of your arse, why don't you...

I think you mean "I don't believe you. Can you give me references?" you foul-mouthed S&M fan.

Gregory John Casamento seemed to say that non-developer managers would make the Foundation more legitimate in but has said he holds the opposite position since I sent the message you replied to.

The same author suggested hiring GNUsteppers and companies to contribute code in

Adam Fedor suggested buying icons in

You're letting your paranoia run unchecked, in my opinion. I am sure you will disagree, but you are more than welcome to.

I've been involved with not-for-profits for nearly half my life now and have helped to create and/or run some of them. It's not paranoia: it's experience.

I don't really think we can have worse marketing than what we have now [...]
Marketing was not a suggested role of the foundation.
Yes it was! What is your problem?

Can you give me a reference, please?

Most recently, Nicolas Roard opined that the foundation would probably not do the marketing itself in

Also, I think you are being rude to those who have tried in the past by calling their efforts "nothing".
And you aren't being rude?? Maybe I'm missing something here...

I try to be polite, not matter how much you are insulting me.

[...] It's not rocket science, and the skills needed to run a non-protif 501(c)(3) or 527 in the USA are nearly indistinguishable from those required to run a normal corporation.

Does the USA have an equivalent of England's Charity Commissioners that check you are using the money only for charitable purposes and that you are not funding your holidays with the donations? How much time and money does it typically cost to run a normal corporation in the USA?

Proper marketing requires money. The moment you bring more than small amounts of money into the picture, you need an entity so the people who manage the money can be held accountable if embezzlement ever happens. [...]

Of course. It is not a short step from this to creating a new entity, though.

Multiple people have noted that you seem to have this uncanny ability to latch on to one little thing and not let go.

I don't think this is a little thing. I'm actually looking for and not finding the big pictures in some of these messages. Instead, people seem to be going gooshy over creating a new foundation, when it's not even clear what it would do.

I'm not going to let go: this is important to me. We might be wasting volunteer effort and our supporters' money. I would be ashamed of that.

Unfortunately, however much the lurkers support you in email, I have real questions that you should consider before rushing into this.

Raising concerns we welcome; indiscriminate criticism we do not.

It's not indiscriminate. It's very discriminating: it seeks the information certain posters should have to support their claims.

We're all on the same side here, fighting for the same ultimate goal. Never lose sight of that.

I haven't. Have you? The FSF is on our side too, but some foundation advocates seem willing to insult our friends and second-guess their wishes, apparently without much evidence. I have been politely asking GNUsteppers for years to engage with FSF more. If FSF and GNUstep are too remote for you, you should accept that this is GNUsteppers' fault too.

MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - village 6+7 Oct

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]