Hi - Go ahead, but you are missing my point. Managing money like you propose is not something Apache Members want to do.
Having a good working relationship with a third party is something the ASF does all the time. The AOO project could find a way to work out a program that would serve to make a relationship that benefits the public. Call your org A. If an org B came along that met the criteria of our relationship with B then they would get the same benefit. This is expansion. It could be that third parties meet a standard of open source, Apache licensed code that is always contributed back to AOO for us to choose to incorporate. We already have groups that are like this. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 20, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Peter Kovacs <legi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions. I am > against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers to > nothing happens. > > I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at > mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors. > > What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache is > capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game changing > model in general. > > > For me the model should respect: > > # Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for developers but > for tasks / actions) > > # nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the organisation > itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.) > > # Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same infra if > they whish.) > > # Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all commiters if > they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.) > > > This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I am > thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered. This is > maybe 1% of a business plan. > > I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage this > on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his vision). > > > I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also One > or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in parts. For me > this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later stage. And I stress > this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache. A crowd funding community > is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be difficult in times. You do well > to be prepared. > > I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and fears. > It would be so powerfull if we can make this work. > > > Stay agile, keep Chalanging > > Peter > >> On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote: >> Hi - >> >> Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following statement >> as opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party. >> >>> and one more note: >>> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and >>> the OpenOffice project. >>> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC >>> must first represent the interests of OpenOffice. >> Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is just like >> a shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC memberships and AOO is >> but one of mine. >> >> In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit and >> must not play favorites with anyone whether individual or corporation. >> >> The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so. >> >> If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding for >> third parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered including >> keeping the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds, auditing etc. >> This would be expensive. So, you can see that it just does not happen. >> >> A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project MUST >> be kept. >> >> I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other employees/volunteers >> from that group who demonstrate merit here would have my support for >> committer status. >> >> A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice. That >> could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By verification as >> a way to validate the downstream. >> >> Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com] >>>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and >>>> turn towards >>>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project >>>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure >>>> voluntary work of >>>> people that belive in the market name Open Office. >>> +1 >>> >>>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not >>>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of >>>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project >>>> Libre/Open Office is. >>> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct. >>> >>> But one thing should be quite clear: >>> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve >>> ourselves. >>> >>>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if >>>> not more >>>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF. >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> Peter has said a lot about what I find right. >>> >>> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these >>> things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming. >>> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long >>> run. >>> >>> >>> and one more note: >>> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and >>> the OpenOffice project. >>> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC >>> must first represent the interests of OpenOffice. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Jörg >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
