On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
I did not suggest at any point that "you" should give "me" any money. (Note
this is your words with "you" and "me", i've never made this about any
specific project nor person).
Irrelvant, substitute "Krita Foundation" or "Timothee Giet" or "KDE e.V."
where applicable, surely you understand that.
That's so extremely basic that I have no idea how to start explaining this
in a more clear way, so here's a question:
"You say that fund raising is not a zero-sum game, that's right, and
that's the reason why i said "some percentage" should be payed by the
"specificly raised funds" and not 100%."
in your other answer to a mail of mine. That basically boils down to
imposing a KDE e.V. tax to projects in the KDE community that raise funds
for their project.
How would the KDE e.V. impose any tax?
You say "i said "some percentage" should be payed by the "specificly
raised funds" " -- which is pretty much the definition of a tax. I don't
know how KDE e.V. would impose that percentage, but I guess you thought
about that when making the suggestion.
I don't see how the KDE eV would nothing but encourage people to get more
funding, but i obviously can't speak for a organization as big as the KDE eV
You are on the board, which means you can be a spokesperson, so I want to
know for whom you are speaking.
To repeat my original proposal in case it was misunderstood; I am suggesting
that it may make sense that projects that run their own fundraisers should
share the cost of sprints since they're generating their own income.
Why? Heck, a lot of people attending sprints these days are generating
their own income. Why shouldn't they share the costs? And heck, again, why
stop at sprints? There's the cost of hardware, of the e.V. office -- all
providing shared benefits for all projects.
Not that I don't think we should cut down on support for sprints. The
Calligra sprint was big failure, at least one person only attending
because they got a free trip out of it. And heck again, Krita only had
sprints in 2005 (self-funded, since nobody knew about sprints back then),
2010, 2011 and 2014... It's not like Krita's wasting KDE e.V.'s money
while it's flush with cash itself.
Projects that raise money for development are making KDE bigger.
As said in the paragraphs above, i don't think anybody would disagree with
this, but can't speak for everybody.
I feel your logic boils down to this:
* you see projects doing fund raisers, and sometimes even making their
* you see those projects asking for the same support from KDE e.V. as
projects who don't do that
* you feel that's unfair. They got money -- why are they asking KDE e.V.
And then it goes on from there to the rationalization that it is unfair
because projects that do fund raisers take money that would otherwise be
donated to KDE e.V., so it's fair that they pay for what other projects
would get funded from KDE e.V.
kde-community mailing list