PostGIS Raster seems to be doing pooled funding here:
http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/WKTRaster/PlanningAndFunding
I don't know how well the effort has been promoted and publicized, I just
learned about it from a recent email on the PostGIS list:
http://postgis.refractions.net/pipermail/postgis-users/2011-June/029791.html
Eli
Robert Hollingsworth r...@prodigy.net 06/04/11 9:32 AM
I've been discussing variations on an idea for a while with various people:
Form pools of users around specific application functionality that the users
share
a need for. They team up with developers to collaboratively specify and
develop
software. The users in the pool contribute a fraction of the total cost of the
project.
It's not a radically different model from what happens in open source
development all the time, but the user sees a more direct benefit resulting
from
their financial contribution: I'm spending US$1000.00 as my share of extending
so-and-so project with the such-and-such capability I need right now. This
seems like a stronger funding recruitment than I'm contributing US$1000.00 to
project so-and-so, and I hope the such-and-such capability I need shows up
soon. And definitely more attractive than I'm footing the entire cost of
US$22,000.00 to hire consultants to extend project so-and-so with the
such-and-such capability I need.
From a developer's perspective, this also seems like a natural progression on
the
continuum that begins with the traditional closed-source, license-driven
develop-
once-sell-many model. From my own perspective, I'd certainly enjoy repeatedly
being paid to create essentially the same $22,000.00 product for multiple
users,
but realize it's better to have them collectively pay me $22,000.00 ONCE for
something they all use, than to have NONE of them pay me anything because
they cannot afford to individually finance the entire project.
Having said all that, I can think of many reasons why this type of funding
structure would be difficult to set up and maintain. I may elaborate on these
in a
followup message, but in the meantime I'd like to hear what others think about
this kind of approach.
Robert H.
*** TOTALLY IGNORE this test paragraph to see if my web mail editor
generates ridiculously long auto line wraps when I post to OSGeo mail lists,
which is what I think I have observed before when I don't manually insert line
breaks. If this does NOT generate a ridiculously long message which requires
horizontal scroll to be able to read each line, then I apologize for this
ridiculously long test paragraph! ***
Duarte,
I agree with you and have similar ideas. I just recently sent an email
similar (cites National Public Radio and Wikipedia examples) to these ideas to
the Board. http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2011-June/003816.html The
premise of my idea is that there are numerous agencies and companies that have
employees with minor budgetary authority to spend ~$500 on software and these
individuals are often using OSGeo projects and getting assistance using these
OSGeo projects on the email lists and IRC. It makes sense that these people
might be involved in sponsorship. What do others think?
Although not heavily promoted, OSGeo and some projects can accept money
through OSGeo here, http://www.osgeo.org/sponsorship/opportunities Some have
$500 minimums.
Here is the content of that email:
Board,
I started this email about six months ago and wanted to keep refining it and
adding bits, but, it seems to be the opportune time to send it since it is a
current topic for the Board (and it is already far too long - perhaps I should
have spend more time removing not adding).
I have some ideas pertaining to fundraising that I did not find previously
discussed on the board or fundraising email lists. Searching the wiki and
board minutes didn't turn up this discussion either. Perhaps these ideas have
already been discussed and discarded in other venues. I think that OSGEO
projects could get substantial funds from many corporate and agency users in
$500-$2,000 increments on an annual basis.
I am thinking of a fundraiser very similar to the National Public Radio style
in the States. That is that for one week instead of providing high quality,
commercial free, respected news and music, they focus at least 50% of the time
on fundraising. In addition to changing the focus to fundraising they use all
methods possible to fundraise. The methods seem almost extreme. It verges on
berating, guilt, coercion, and other less dignified methods. Here are some
clips that highlight some of these methods although mixed with humor,
http://www.vpr.net/episode/49677/ If you have never listened to a NPR style
fundraiser, I would suggest listening to one (although I also suggest listening
to the station for a week without fundraiser to experience some of the more
positive aspects of NPR). There
