On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43, Dave Neary<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Jaap A. Haitsma wrote: >> >> Many people liked this option when we discussed it compared to the old >> system >> 5000$ < 50 >> 10000$ > 50 >> >> If you think 5 are too many I'd go for 3 >> 1000$ < 10 employees >> 5000$ < 100 employees >> 20000$ > 1000 employees > > No members between 100 and 1000 employees?
Oops my mistake. I just stroke out two of the five options > How about something more like this: > > $3000 <= 10 employees or $1M revenues > $10000 <= 50 employees or $5M revenues > $20000 > 50 employees or $5M revenues Many private companies don't want to disclose their revenues so I'd leave that out. Furthermore in this case if you are 11 people you already pay 10K, which is a lot for such a small company. Looking at it it's not really easy to fit a fair system three scales. 4 seems to be the minimum, and it's also obvious in a way companies of 10, 100, 1000 or more than 1000 are very different companies. $1000 <= 10 employees $5000 <= 100 employees $10000 <= 1000 employees $20000 > 1000 employees > I'm in favour of increasing dues for existing advisory board members, with > their agreement of course. > >> My idea for a premium fee was to help smaller companies. If you say a >> premium package costs 30K it will be to expensive for small companies. >> For a company with less than 10 people paying 1000$ a year (in my >> proposal) paying an extra fee of say 10K$ might be worth it, when >> there are perks like travel vouchers etc. > > Again, I want to point out that there are 2 distinct issues here: advisory > board membership (where the fee is important, but the strategic alignment > with GNOME is more important) and sponsorship (where strategic alignment is > unimportant, and we'll take your money whoever you are). We are in agreement here. > The simple principle to follow for sponsorship is: if you pay more, you get > more. The size of the company shouldn't even enter into consideration, it's > the size of your contribution which matters. > > There is a certain charm in saying that a small guy who makes a > proportionately larger donation should get more than a big guy making the > same donation, but at the end of the day a $50,000 from Google is worth more > to the GNOME Foundation than a $1000 donation from me, even though $1000 is > probably comparatively more money to me. So why shouldn't Google get more > thanks for giving more? I think the current thinking is to make the premium package something that has a fixed fee. So we are in agreement here. For the normal sponsorship I would be opposed to only have size of the contribution matter. Many small shops are really important for the further development of GNOME and relatively contribute a lot of code to GNOME compared to large multinationals. > >>> The reason I thought of this is because someone needed a premium >>> sponsorship >>> to include GUADEC. Again, it's about getting approval and it's easier to >>> get >>> approval once internally for one thing than to have to go back for all >>> the >>> line items. >>> >>> We'll have to see in the report, but I think most companies gave the same >>> amount they would have given if it was just GUADEC - I'm not sure we made >>> twice as much by combining the conferences. Not to say there aren't other >>> benefits ... >> >> Which report are you talking about? > > The Gran Canaria Desktop Summit financial report, presumably. > > >> Looks like a decent package to me. (Stormy I think you beat all of us >> in the brainstorm :-) ) >> >> Comments? I think we should work it out further now to a concrete >> proposal with the right numbers > > I do like the idea of a sponsorship package, but I can't insist enough that > it be completely separate from the advisory board, and be associated with > the level of donation rather than size of the donor. The package (except for > the advisory board seat) looks great. You would just need to chop it up in > appropriate chunks to reflect contribution levels. Maybe we should take of the "advisory board seat upon approval" from the perks. Stormy, Can you out of the discussion make a conclusion which you also support and we can start formalizing with the existing sponsors as the new corporate fees and premium sponsorship Thanks Jaap -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
