What does it mean to “enable” marketing? If that’s the same level of marketing we get at the ASF already, then it’s dead in the water for most projects.
— Matt Sicker > On May 9, 2022, at 10:22, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > >> >> I think the non-profit charity aspect definitely would disqualify the ASF > as being one of these Fiscal Hosts. But in general, it does sound like they > could be something usable, just not using the ASF as Fiscal Host. > > I am not sure to be honest. From at least looking at the description of > what Fiscal Host is, this is mainly about "legal entity", "being able to > issue invoices" and that's about it. > > Even if you look at the fiscal hosts that the open-collective manages, they > have a 501(C) US-Based charity foundation as one of the fiscal hosts: > https://opencollective.com/foundation - which I think is the same regime > as the ASF. > > See: > https://docs.opencollective.com/help/fiscal-hosts/fiscal-hosts > >> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:11 PM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Roman and Jarek, >> >> well the reason I was proposing something new was that I did try to >> participate with some of the existing initiatives like Tidelift, but they >> showed a great amount of disinterest. It seems as if only the projects big >> enough are considered worthy of being supported. The entity I proposed >> should be available for any project, no matter what size it is. >> >> Yes, it could just be a new company and wouldn't need to have the blessing >> of the ASF, but then there would be yet another Support Inc. Effectively >> all splitting the cake up into smaller pieces hereby keeping each one from >> not reaching the breaking point in which things would start running on >> their own. >> >> That's why I thought: Something with explicit ties to the ASF could >> benefit from being considered the “official” way to get support or at least >> the way the ASF considers to be absolutely in-line with its policies and >> might help reaching the critical mass needed to work. >> >> I mean with most companies in the Industry, they only work with preferred >> vendors and they have a limited amount of “slots” on that list. So, they >> usually have business relationships with the bigger companies. If we don’t >> have a good open-source Support Inc. able to fill one of these slots, it >> doesn’t matter how many there are. >> >> In general, I’d be happy, if an existing company could provide this >> service, but as I mentioned, my condition for accepting this as a solution >> would be that every project wanting to do so, could do their business >> though them. Tidelift has proven to only select the filet parts, which I >> consider inacceptable for being considered as being a solution to this >> problem. >> >> And to what Jarek said. I think the non-profit charity aspect definitely >> would disqualify the ASF as being one of these Fiscal Hosts. But in >> general, it does sound like they could be something usable, just not using >> the ASF as Fiscal Host. >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2022 11:49 >> To: dev@community.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea? >> >> Very good points Roman. I think it's great to think about it with the >> building business "mindset" - this is the only way it can actually succeed. >> But maybe we do not have to go this way. >> The #1 seems much more attractive and there are other options. >> >> I think Open Collective is as close as it can be to the 'Apache Way" when >> it comes to enablers and the economy of scale is already there I think. >> >> I've been participating with several campaigns now through them - they >> seem to be they don't even want to "own the relation" between the >> "collective individuals" and "sponsors". >> >> They seem to be pretty much 100% of what I consider as "enabler" - >> https://opencollective.com/how-it-works: >> >> * Managing payments and admin >> * enabling easy marketing and promotion >> * basically enabling a group of people to establish effective, repeating >> campaigns and building long-lasting relationships generally focused on >> "doing good". >> * the "collectives" decide themselves on the scope and conditions of the >> campaign they run - but eventually it's all based on the reputation of the >> people who run the collective to be trusted by the supporters. >> * you can organize your "collective" there without legally incorporating >> it (by a group of individuals) and get anyone to support it. >> >> I think the only remaining question is - how feasible and attractive such >> "collective" might be for Sponsoring companies. >> >> And there is an interesting option that might be actually a good response >> to it and a way how such a collective **might** get reputation. >> The Apache Software Foundation **could** become a "Fiscal Host" there >> https://docs.opencollective.com/help/fiscal-hosts/fiscal-hosts - i.e. an >> entity that holds the funds and manages the legal/bank account but it is >> not involved in any way with the contracts and decisions of the >> "collective". >> >> A fiscal host is a legal company or individual who holds a Collective’s >> funds in their bank account and can generate invoices and receipts for >> supporters and sponsors. You can think of a fiscal host as an umbrella >> organization for the Collectives in it. >> >> I think such "Fiscal Host" is precisely the "missing" link we did not have >> so far. Of course it needs to be checked from the legal side - what is the >> responsibility and whether it is in-line with the ASF bylaws and mission, >> but seems like becoming "Fiscal Host" in open collective is precisely what >> the ASF could do. And then it gets even better, because such Fiscal Host >> might host mutliple collectives: >> - one per PMC for example - why not >> - "Security at the ASF" - for multiple projects >> >> And many others. The nice thing there is that IF the ASF will not charge >> the collectives, OpenCollective does not charge their 15% cut. And any >> collective can "apply" to be hosted by a fiscal host. I am not sure what >> are the rules and policies there, but I believe the collectives have to be >> "approved" by the ASF host. And this is as close to "endorsement" without >> actually a legal responsibility as it can be. The "sponsors" would deal >> with the ASF that would issue the invoices, while the "business >> relationship" of Sponsor will be with the collective organizers. >> >> This really sounds rather cool if we could make ASF become such a Fiscal >> Host. >> >> Few claims they do: >> >> * "Unlike other crowdfunding platforms, Open Collective is designed for >> ongoing collaborations. That means your funding and community of support >> doesn’t disappear after a single campaign, or if the initial organizers >> move on. >> * "Our code is fully transparent and open source, just like our budget. >> You own your data: we’ll never sell it or lock you in." >> * "Open Collective uniquely combines a powerful tech platform with fiscal >> hosting, enabling Collectives to raise and spend money without legally >> incorporating, worrying about taxes, or opening a bank account." >> >> J. >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:16 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Chris, thanks for sort of reviving the old thread I had before the >>> war: I'm slowly coming back to my more regular Open Source life from >>> all the craziness of the past two months. Because of that, there's not >>> much to report back -- but I will share a few points and comment on a >>> few of yours. Hope this will help move things along. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 3:11 PM Christofer Dutz >>> <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> now that the Aprils Fool Joke has worn off a bit, I think I can post >>> this here. I at first suggested this in the board list before April >>> 1st, as I wanted to make sure this hasn’t been wiped off the table as >>> a silly idea before. >>>> >>>> Turns out that I didn’t get a single “silly idea” response. >>>> >>>> As you all might know I have been working on finding ways to finance >>>> my >>> work on open-source, but in an open-source way that others can also >>> profit from what I might find out. >>>> >>>> There are some projects that managed to form or attract companies to >>> grow around them. These usually don’t have problems finding funds to >>> finance further development. >>>> However, we also have a large number of projects that are not as >>>> big, or >>> a large number of people working on our projects, but don’t work for >>> those companies. >>>> >>>> So, these people are generally relying on finding contracts themselves. >>> This usually is problematic as many larger companies don’t do business >>> with individuals. >>>> Also is it often tricky to get the legal documents and contracts >>>> right >>> and then not even talking about how long payments usually take. >>>> >>>> Another thing is that the ASF is a non-profit organization and >>>> therefore >>> it’s challenging to advertise commercial offerings around Apache >> projects. >>>> >>>> As an example: One of the things I found out with my crowd-funding >>> experiment is that this doesn’t work. Admittedly I wasn’t expecting it >>> to work. Companies just can’t donate large amounts of money without >>> any assurances. But I did learn one thing: My crowd-funding experiment >>> was in a way the most successful thing I did. >>>> >>>> The thing was, that I listed up things that could be on the roadmap >>>> and >>> I added a price-tag to them. This is one thing an Apache project just >>> couldn’t do. So even if I didn’t get a single cent in donations for my >>> work, I was approached by multiple companies willing to finance >>> individual campaigns, but with a normal consulting contract. >>>> >>>> Now there are also companies like Tidelift, that want to close this >> gap. >>> However, we are still a bit unsure how to align the interest of that >>> company with the values of the ASF. And there’s the fact that not >>> everyone is able to profit from Tidelift. I for example tried reaching >>> out to them several times for offering commercial PLC4X support, but >>> the only responses I got, were people wanting to discuss how my >>> business could profit from using more open-source ;-) So for me >>> Tidelift is not an option as not everyone can use it. >>>> >>>> Now let me get to my idea: >>>> What If there was a separate legal entity closely related to the ASF >>> (Let’s call it “Support Inc.” for now). I would even propose that the >>> oversight entity for Support Inc. should be the ASF board. This would >>> assure the company is perfectly in-line with the ASF and its values. >>> >>> First of all, I 100% agree with Sam -- there's absolutely 0 reason >>> that I see these two entities should have (structurally!) any more >>> ties than ASF and let's say Cloudera. If you disagree on that point >>> strongly -- now would be a good time to list all your reasons for why. >>> >>> Back to building an independent business: my hypothesis back when I >>> started the Tidelift thread is that we basically have two choices: >>> 1. piggy back off of somebody who is already doing a similar kind of >>> a business (and convince them to tweak it to be fully aligned with >>> ASF's vision) >>> 2. have a brand new business >>> >>> This thread of yours seem to be focused on #2 so I'll stay with that >>> (and will comment on #1 in a separate thread). >>> >>> I'll start with saying that I've been talking to a LOT of my VC and >>> OSS Foundations friends about #2 lately and the consensus seems to be >>> that it is all about the economics of bootstrapping this kind of a >>> business. The economics simply doesn't seem to work out (at least not >>> in the US market) until you hit a certain number of customers AND >>> committers in what, effectively, can be described as a marketplace. We >>> can debated at what # of both of these you can hope to be at least >>> somewhat revenue neutral, but it is pretty clear that the numbers are >>> significant. Effectively, you need seed money. >>> >>> This kind of seed money can either come from (please add to the list >>> if I missed anything): >>> 1. large Co's (FANG, etc.) >>> 2. traditional VCs >>> 3. non-traditional VCs >>> >>> #1 I am not hopeful -- and if there's anyone on this list who can help >>> move a needle in that direction I'd love to hear about that >>> >>> #2 the feedback universally is "you're proposing to build a >>> marketplace, there's a few already (e.g. Tidelif), please explain why >>> yours will be any better/different/etc. -- if you can't at least go >>> talk to existing ones and try to join forces" >>> >>> #3 (this could be something as crazy as Elon Musk seeding it btw) is >>> where I'm focusing right now (plus a bit of "go talk to them" from #2) >>> >>> At any rate -- until there's a concrete proposal about where this kind >>> of money can come from -- I don't think we will be making any >>> progress. >>> >>> But suppose we (and by "we" here I mean a group of individuals in the >>> ASF who would want to step up as founders of something like this) did >>> get some money -- we will have to have some rules of engagement with >>> the ASF. >>> >>> That seems to be the rest of your points: >>> >>>> Individuals could sign up on Support Inc’s website for providing >>> commercial services around Apache projects. These services could be >>> Consulting, Feature development, Training, Commercial Support. >>>> On this site a user could also add possible feature-development >>> campaigns with a price-tag attached, just like I did on my website. >>>> >>>> If a company wants to finance a feature, get support, consulting, or >>> training around an Apache project, this would be the well-known >>> website somebody would go to first. >>>> >>>> Support Inc. would provide the contracts >>> >>> Obvious point, but this is exactly where the liability starts and it >>> needs to be managed (for which seed $$$ is required). >>> >>>> and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent >>> 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that). >>> >>> Yup. The economy of scale will obviously help, but not until we hit >>> 100s of participants in our marketplace. >>> >>>> Also, would Support Inc. be a bigger company the customer would be >>>> doing >>> business with, which would probably ease the problem of getting into >>> the companies with Chris Inc. >>> >>> Business development/marketing for Support Inc. will also require seed. >>> >>>> The contracts would be between the Support Inc. and the customer, >>>> and >>> the customer would pay to Support Inc. The developer would have a >>> contract with Support Inc. and be paid from this but give Support Inc. >>> a certain percentage of the contact to cover its expenses (But in >>> contrast to other pure for-profit companies, this cut would be a lot >> less than usual). >>> >>> Again -- typical marketplace mechanics -- all great but (cue tons of >>> MBA articles on Uber, etc.) requires "buying" at least one end of it >>> (typically with VC money) first. >>> >>>> Now a developer could probably choose from different models, where >>>> he >>> gets paid instantly (but then give Support Inc. a bigger cut of the >>> profits) or wait for the customer to pay. >>>> The services the new company would provide, would be taking care of >>>> the >>> payments, the legal issues and provide the infrastructure for finding >>> commercial support offerings. >>>> And if people know this is something integrated into the general >>> open-source ecosystem, I assume people would probably try less to >>> screw with as they know it might backfire PR-wise, just like dragging >>> the ASF to court wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do. >>>> >>>> If the company earns money, it could become a sponsor of the ASF. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> I hope you’re now not going to point at me laughing because I like >>>> the >>> idea. >>> >>> I think: >>> 0. I am *really* excited about this -- to a point where I'd love to >>> be one of the founder's in a business like that, but we need at least >>> a few more >>> 1. I DO NOT think it is viable as an "organic growth" type of a >>> business -- hence it'll required seed >>> >>> Putting both of these together -- for now I'll focus on trying to >>> finding an existing marketplace we can mold to our needs. I'm still >>> bullish on Tidelift, but I need to re-start a few discussions with >>> them on particulars. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Roman. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >>> >>> >>
