Re: [draft 3] Guidelines for Equipment and Service Donations

In message <Pine(dot)LNX(dot)3(dot)96(dot)990313222150(dot)18185d-100000(at)se232(dot)math(dot)indiana(dot)edu
>, L
ynn Winebarger writes:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Nils Lohner wrote:
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> -Proposed Draft 3- Resolution 1999.03.03.nl
>> Guidelines for Equipment and Service Donations
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> General Guidelines for Donations
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> - All equipment will be used to further the goals of SPI and its
>> affiliated projects, and will be used in accordance with all SPI rules
and
>> regulations.
>>
>>[etc]
>
> Could there be a clause stating where descriptions of purposes may be
>found? This might help provide a common reference for projects. I'm
>particularly thinking that 2 people might want their donations to be used
>for the same purpose, but described differently, particularly when there's
>no existent effort to fulfill the purpose, or the purpose is an
>intermittent one. Like if someone donated money toward the legal defense
>of free software developers on patent infringement suits. Or services,
>from lawyers.

I'd rather not write that into the resolution as it's a technicality, not
a general rule. I argee that this would be valuable, and it's something
that we should probably put on our web site in the project pages.

> Also, a site describing the current funding status of the different
>projects/purposes might be helpful in determining where one wants to
>dedicate their money (in some cases, you might decide not to donate for
>a very under-funded one as compared to a better-funded one that
>seems to be gathering some momentum. or you might make the opposite
>decision).
>

Yes, it would be. This could also go on the project pages.

Thanks for the comments!

Nils.

>Lynn
>
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>
>

It might be wise to consider requiring people to not require a purpose for
donations to SPI but allow general use.

If we allow a specifications of purpose:

Who is going to track that and make sure it is really used like that?

We need then to have a database of machines etc etc which is quite a
headache.

Given our limited administrative capabilities I dont think its wise to
allow people to restrict use for a certain purpose. Maybe restrict use for
a project but then the project should track the stuff.

Previously Christoph Lameter wrote:
> It might be wise to consider requiring people to not require a purpose for
> donations to SPI but allow general use.

I want people to be able to say that a donation may only be used for
Debian, so I really want to keep this in.

Wichert.

--
==============================================================================
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma(at)cs(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/

That requirement already has caused trouble. Often equipment from one
project will be used for others as well. How will you track those
limitations on equipment?

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > It might be wise to consider requiring people to not require a purpose for
> > donations to SPI but allow general use.
>
> I want people to be able to say that a donation may only be used for
> Debian, so I really want to keep this in.

On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 12:32:36PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> That requirement already has caused trouble. Often equipment from one
> project will be used for others as well. How will you track those
> limitations on equipment?
>
Keeping a log wouldn't be all that difficult. We need to keep an
inventory, anyway.

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Nils Lohner wrote:

> In message <Pine(dot)LNX(dot)3(dot)96(dot)990313222150(dot)18185d-100000(at)se232(dot)math(dot)indiana(dot)edu
> >, L
> ynn Winebarger writes:
> >
> > Could there be a clause stating where descriptions of purposes may be
> >found? This might help provide a common reference for projects. I'm
>
> I'd rather not write that into the resolution as it's a technicality, not
> a general rule. I argee that this would be valuable, and it's something
> that we should probably put on our web site in the project pages.
>
Well, I'm not sure it's actually a technicality. In contrast with
other people on the list who've responded, I think there should be more
of a guarantee that funds will be used for specific purposes, and that
this promise of a site tracking donation/purpose status would help
assure them of that.
I realize that there are administrative issues to consider. But
we should also consider the article Jim Thompson wrote on Slashdot
about organizing an "open source donation clearing house" of sorts.
When I read it, my immediate reaction was, "but isn't that part of
what SPI is (planning on) doing?"
See, I tend to think there are a lot of people and companies who would
be willing to donate for particular purposes, but not necessarily just
open software, or even when the promise of using the funds is limited.
Furthermore, I think that if SPI limits its guarantees of how money will
be used, then probably either another non-profit will arise to take and
track those donations, or (worse) the potential donors just won't give
funds. And neither of those situations is desirable. A unified front for
donations is very preferable.
When I say that, keep in mind that I'm thinking that companies (not
just individuals) who need/use particular types of software could
reasonably be persuaded to give for those types of software - not only
would they get to use the software in the future, but unlike just
purchasing licenses, they would get a tax write off, and some guarantee
that the projects they donate for totally die because a particular
developer loses interest. This would be a big win for everyone, I think.

Lynn