Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

[MJ Ray]

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,
> No.
> > 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 
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-09/msg00016.html 
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 
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-09/msg00010.html

Adam Fedor suggested buying icons in 
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-09/msg00021.html

> 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 
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-10/msg00013.html

> > 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 - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk