Re: [kde-community] KDE fundraisers and things we've learned

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Monday 22 December 2014 21:00:25 Mario Fux wrote:
> 
> One can see it from the perspective of distracting each other and fighting
> for the audience. But I'd see this as a rather destructive way of handling
> this discussion. I would like to talk about the opportunities we miss(ed),
> we can and should learn from each other, base new fundraisers on the what
> we've learned before, use our strength like the KDE community as a social
> network, the dot.kde.org as one of our bigger communication channels, so
> let's crowd distribute the information for our crowd funding. We can and
> will do better than we do now.

It's great to see that we have increasing success with fund raisers. Last year 
we have raised more money with fund raisers than ever before, and that is an 
excellent sign that we have a community which is able to sustain the work we 
are doing for free software.

The discussion has gone on some tangents which don't do this success justice. 
We should not discuss how to distribute a fixed cake, but how we can grow the 
cake bigger. Bruno has put it the right way, that successful campaigns 
demonstrate that projects are active and are doing the right things, and Boud 
has told the stories about how Krita reaches out to people we have never 
reached before. This is the stuff which I find exciting. We can build on that.

It is a truism that our money is finite. But this community consistently deals 
with requests for money in an extremely responsible way. It actually is 
amazing how many people try hard to only request the money they really need, 
bring in own resources or try to get others to help before they ask KDE e.V. 
Of course we need to manage the budget of KDE e.V., but the best way we can do 
that is with the happy feeling that we are able to help, not with a feeling of 
envy or unfairness, if an active and successful project gets a good amount of 
support.

Mario is right in saying that taking the perspective of fighting for the 
audience within KDE is destructive. We don't need to go down this path. We can 
grow our audience. We can multiply our success by working together. Fund 
raising is about asking for money. We should not be afraid of doing that, no 
matter if it's for a single application or for the overall community. If we do 
it with the passion for our work and with the awareness of being part of a 
bigger community, we can reach much more than if we try to limit and control 
it.

> What we definitely need is better coordination and communication. What do
> you think, would a fundraising workgroup help? Not really a group that's
> doing a fundraising but that's there to help, coordinate and teach and
> distribute their knowledge.

Coordination is extremely important. It should be clear to everybody that each 
project and we as community are operating in a larger context. I don't think 
we need to introduce more formal organization here. People do want to do the 
right thing, and we should remove obstacles, not create new ones.

We do have the kde-ev-campa...@kde.org mailing list, which is meant as the 
central place to coordinate fund raising campaigns. Let's try to make best use 
of this, invite people working on fund raisers to subscribe there and share 
their plans, so we can all learn and align the activities which need to be 
aligned.

> Additionally we should add it to our Manifesto. Money is not an easy topic
> but avoiding it doesn't solve the problems. And if people don't know about
> certain things like that they should coordinate with KDE e.V. in the case
> of money they won't. So it's on us to tell the community and tell new
> members of the community.

I don't think that this should be in the Manifesto. It is a very concrete 
issue and it is valid, but I think it is not on the level of what should be in 
the Manifesto. The Manifesto and other documents like the code of conduct 
define higher-level values, and things such as coordinating about fund raising 
can be derived from them.

We should approach this from a pragmatic point of view of how to get things 
done best and do what is needed for that. This will be much more helpful than 
trying to nail down a documented rule.

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher 
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] KDE office (was: Your KDE highlight of 2014?)

[Mirko Boehm]

Happy new year everybody!

> On 29 Dec 2014, at 16:05, Aaron J. Seigo  wrote:
> 
> On Monday, December 29, 2014 13.43:44 Mirko Boehm wrote:
>> the least of our worries. If a significant portion of commits are coming
>> from that room, why wouldn’t it be a KDE office? :-)
> 
> Two reasons:
> 
> a) if person / company X is permitted without specific license to say they 
> run 
> a KDE office, it becomes much harder (even impossible) to prevent person / 
> company Y from doing the same in future. We may like X and trust them and all 
> that, but the precedence of "hey, set up an office and call it a KDE office" 
> opens the door for others we may not. Trademark is predicated on active 
> protection.
> 
> b) KDE could easily find itself liable legally, reputationally, or both for 
> any negative activity[1] that occurs in that physical location. 

Now you sound like a lawyer. The factual tone of these statements makes them 
sound authoritative, which they are not. I suggest to be more careful with 
that, as it discourages others from participating in the debate.  

About a): Protecting a trademark is not the same as preventing the trademark 
from being used. This has been a long-standing misinterpretation in our 
community. The trademark KDE is the trade name of our community as the source 
of our software. This understanding is what we have to protect. If it is used 
to represent activities of our community (as in calling a room where some of 
our major contributors work a KDE office), it does not dilute how the public 
sees the community through the trademark. Because it designates community 
activities with the community trademark KDE. It would only be wrong if the 
people there aren’t KDE contributors, which is certainly not the case.

About b): There is no legal liability that comes out of nowhere. The only civil 
relationship between the people in that office and KDE e.V. is that they are 
using the trade name. This use is on line with other uses of the trademark we 
allow (without an explicit trademark license) to contributors. In terms of 
reputation, I do not see a difference to anybody referring to KDE for the 
software they distribute, or by claiming to be a part of the KDE community. 
“Negative activity” is not limited to a physical location. 

> A "KDE office" implicitly represents KDE. It's all fun and games until 
> someone 
> gets an eye poked out, and unfortunately for KDE it would be KDE's eye.
> 
> Given the investment of time, effort and money that has gone into creating 
> the 
> KDE trademark (both legally and reputationally), it would seem that showing 
> the small amount of prudence and organizational maturity to require "KDE 
> offices" to get official permission to use the trademark would not be too 
> much 
> to expect.
> 
> Would you be cool with someone starting a random Endocode office?

Apples and oranges, because Endocode is a specific company, not a distributed 
community. In our community, we allow everybody to represent KDE who 
contributes, and KDE e.V. is there to support. The only difference here is a 
physical location, while the other community activities happen in a virtual 
space. In terms of trademark use, I don’t see a difference. 

> For concerns about creating barriers: if someone finds it too onerous to 
> apply 
> for such permission[2], they really can't be that serious about it. Even 
> getting a commit account for KDE requires filling out a small amount of 
> information, committing to important documents (e.g. Manifesto, CoC) and 
> otherwise demonstrating good intent.

Instead of setting up a process of asking for permission, I suggest to put 
creating a trademark licensing policy for KDE back on the agenda. It should 
provide the ground rules of trademark use, and license it on the condition that 
the licensee sticks to these.

> [1] "Negative activity" could be a wide spectrum of things: not paying rent 
> due; illegal activities; activities that go against KDE's Manifesto and/or 
> Code of Conduct ….

None of these become a liability of KDE e.V. If something like that happens, it 
would be a case for the community working group like any other violation of our 
community standards. Worst case, we make ask them to remove the references to 
KDE. However, nothing like that happened, the people working in the office in 
question are of the best standing in our community. The do represent our 
community in the best possible sense. 

Cheers, 

Mirko.
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm



___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community