I think you're mostly right about that. Even a Support Inc would have
the same issue that PMCs have here: just because you're an Apache
project doesn't mean everything works the same as any other Apache
project. Having some sort of central business services to support
businesses seems to mirror the structure of PMCs here, so it makes
sense philosophically. The more I think about this, though, the more
it sounds like some sort of startup incubator.
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought the point of this idea was to make OSS development sustainable,
> not to train us all to be founders of startups.
>
> Yes. I think this is a really nice summary of what my point is. Thanks for
> putting it so succinctly.
> I personally think if you want to make a living out of the OSS
> contribution, you actually have to think like a small startup founder
> (where your contribution job is your "product").
>
> J.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:01 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought the point of this idea was to make OSS development sustainable,
> > not to train us all to be founders of startups. The bar to contributors is
> > already high enough as it is (who has the time, energy, and knowledge to
> > spend here? I’d assume mostly well-off people).
> >
> > For comparison, projects developed by a company like Red Hat benefit from
> > name recognition of Red Hat more so than any individual developers there. I
> > get the impression that a sort of Support Inc would leverage name
> > recognition and connections with the people who already do the work.
> >
> > If projects need their own companies to do all this, then only end user
> > applications will thrive at Apache, and all the libraries and developer
> > tools will suffer. Applications depend on these things, but that’s a
> > problem for next quarter, not the current one.
> >
> > —
> > Matt Sicker
> >
> > > On May 10, 2022, at 09:02, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I think we are talking about two different approaches then and hence
> > the
> > > mi understanding. I was thinking more about solving all the
> > > legal/administrative barriers.
> > >
> > > At least that's what I see as a much, much bigger problem than actually
> > > doing marketing and finding stakeholders willing to pay for your job (AKA
> > > "selling" your job).
> > >
> > > I think it would be great to identify what is **really** the problem we
> > > want to solve and what is the biggest obstacle for those who want to earn
> > > money from contributing (I think the survey from the diversity team might
> > > help us in understanding that).
> > >
> > > My personal experience - I think no-one will be able to sell and promote
> > > your job as good as you. And when you do a good job, it's easy. Just
> > speak
> > > about it - at conferences. blog posts, meetups, conferences. There is no
> > > better marketing. My personal experience is that for individuals and
> > small
> > > group of people the best salespeople are those who do the job - and as
> > long
> > > as they do it in a smart way, and what they sell is a small team of
> > people
> > > or their own job - this is much more efficient than "hiring" someone to
> > do
> > > the job. I've been doing that for years in my previous company and we
> > tried
> > > several times with marketing/sales people and it never worked out until
> > we
> > > hit some 50-60 people - until then the sales and marketing people who had
> > > to learn from us what and how to sell took more time and energy from us
> > > than they brought revenue.
> > >
> > > Being an engineer, while speaking about what we do in a passionate way
> > with
> > > transparent and sincere statements, and occasional, very focused and in
> > > short time spans "sales efforts" (usually revolving around tech
> > conferences
> > > that I took part on, spoke at or organized) - I personally brought my
> > > company maybe 30-40% high-margin revenue in the first few years of our
> > > company when we grew from 10 to 40 people. At the same time sales and
> > > marketing attempts we did, brought maybe 5% of rather low-margin revenue
> > or
> > > even loss-inducing revenue. The rest was our CEO's job (also an engineer
> > > but unlike me he gave up being an engineer to be CEO but he "was" the
> > > company). The best sales are when your customer does not feel you are
> > > selling something.
> > >
> > > Yeah. we dreamt that "we will bring those sales and marketing people and
> > > they will do everything for us". But with several attempts it turned out
> > -
> > > at least for me and my companies in the past - a dreampipe until we got
> > the
> > > right scale. And even when it did the amount of time spent be (various)
> > > engineers on marketing and sales was about the same as before - it was
> > just
> > > amplified by the sales/marketing teams we had - and it was needed because
> > > we had more people. Simply, I strongly believe no matter what, if you
> > want
> > > to sell your job, you yourself have to spend time on selling and
> > marketing.
> > > Either doing it or helping others to understand what you do (but the
> > latter
> > > is far less efficient until you hit the right multiplier). And I have
> > many
> > > friends who had exactly the same experience with their companies. But
> > maybe
> > > I am biased of course :). I am just pretty skeptical that bringing
> > external
> > > people who will sell and market a job of a person or a small team will do
> > > any good.
> > >
> > > I think rather than creating a company like that for those PMC members,
> > we
> > > should focus on educating those PMC members so that they are aware they
> > > have to do it themselves and teach them how they can do it (which BTW. I
> > > started to think about organising some workshops about - but this is a
> > > completely different topic that will come likely closer to the end of the
> > > year).
> > >
> > > There is also another aspect - how you renumerate those people "doing
> > it".
> > > There are various models - but for sales usually with fixed retainer and
> > > percentage of revenue and the problem with this is that it provides wrong
> > > incentivisation - completely misaligned with incentivisation of precisely
> > > the teams Matt was talking about "small PMC here, say any of those that
> > > have less than 10 committers or so still around (possibly even with only
> > 3
> > > active PMC members)". Do you think there are many opportunities out there
> > > for such "small projects"? If those few PMC members do not already know
> > > every single stakeholder that would be interested in their work and have
> > > not networked with them, then they probably do not know their "area of
> > > business". So what do you expect those "sales" and "marketing" people to
> > do
> > > in this case? They will simply send a bunch of emails to those that the
> > PMC
> > > members will point at. That's it. They will not bring you new leads
> > > (especially good quality ones), quite the contrary they will get the
> > leads
> > > from you and start spamming the stakeholders hoping they respond - and
> > when
> > > they do, they will ... setup a metting with one of the PMC members. This
> > is
> > > cheap and cost them almost nothing (but also has very small chance of
> > > success). And they won't do any more because they will know that chances
> > > that they will find someone better are slim, and also revenue brought
> > will
> > > be small so it's not worth any more effort from their side. However if
> > > there is big project with multiple commmiters, stakeholders and
> > interested
> > > parties - this might be much more interesting for them, because they can
> > > build the leads and they can get bigger revenue with bigger probability.
> > So
> > > effectively - they will de-priorise such small "slim chance of revenue"
> > > projects and will be working mostly on the big ones ("better chance of
> > > revenue"). Which I think is the opposite you wanted to achieve.
> > >
> > > Also you have to remember this approach does not scale. If you have
> > > multiple different projects, you have no economy of scale - different
> > > stakeholders, different leads, diffferent things to learn (and take time
> > > of) from PMC members. The "sales" process is much more about "who you
> > know"
> > > than "what and how you do" and it does not scale well if you have
> > different
> > > groups of people "to know".
> > >
> > > But (and again this is my experiences and others might vary) the
> > > administrative stuff (invoicing/legal/contracts) is something that:
> > >
> > > a) takes awfully lot of time energy and brings a lot of frustration
> > > (especially when dealing with big customers)
> > > b) could be easily outsourced
> > > c) has a very straightforward and cheap business model (USD 5 /
> > > Invoice/Transfer for example)
> > > d) but if done at scale can help both big and small projects alike - and
> > > cut a lot of time/overhead that otherwise would be almost imposible for
> > > small projects to overcome
> > > e) scales beautfully if there might be one legal entity covering many
> > > projects
> > >
> > > Just to give an example - it took 6 months(!) for my "self-employed"
> > > company to be registered as Google Contractor. Then after I invoiced my
> > > first involce and Google changed Business Entity from Ireland to Poland
> > and
> > > it took another 3 months to move my company from one to the other. During
> > > the 6 months I could not get paid (I luckily had another source of income
> > > as smaller companies at startup stage act faster). During the 3 month of
> > > transition I did not issue invoices (nor get paid) and after 3 months it
> > > took me 2 months of iterations and sending about 10 different invoices
> > > until we managed to work out how I should "really" invoice I should issue
> > > so that it is in-line with the rules (which I was of course not aware
> > of).
> > > That took enormous and needles amount of time and energy and brought a
> > lot
> > > of frustration. T\his could have been avoided if someone - much better in
> > > accounting than me - could take care about it.
> > >
> > > And I simply could afford to wait as I had other sources of income.
> > >
> > > Another example - I spent a small fortune with my lawyers iterating on a
> > > contract that would be good for me (as the customer asked me to provide
> > > one). After I did and send it, after two weeks ... I got the customer's
> > > contract proposal which had nothing to do with my proposal. I think I
> > > already paid more to my lawyers for the preparation of the contract than
> > I
> > > will earn from the contract in 3-4 months. I did it smartly and I
> > prepared
> > > the contract in smart enough way so that I can use it as a template for
> > my
> > > future customers, but still - not having to do it (including time lost
> > and
> > > energy and frustration) would be a blessing. And this scales wel (if
> > > possible,. I am actually planning to donate my contract template to
> > others
> > > at ASF as I specifically put there some clauses that protected my status
> > as
> > > an idependent contributor).
> > >
> > > That's why I - personally - think trying to build a company that will
> > > "market" and "sale" your jobs is not the right goal but making a
> > machinery
> > > that wil allow other contributors to make use of them easily is much more
> > > important. But I might be biased of course - maybe I am just totally
> > wrong
> > > on that. I would not like to take the energy off such initiative if
> > someone
> > > wants to try it differently - those are just my personal experiences
> > that I
> > > wanted to share.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:02 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> These were the parts, that I was thinking should be the work of such a
> > >> shared Support Inc. That the projects could concentrate on the work,
> > not on
> > >> what's needed to get the work.
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
> > >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> > >> To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> > >>
> > >> So let's look at this from the point of view of a small PMC here, say
> > >> any of those that have less than 10 committers or so still around
> > >> (possibly even with only 3 active PMC members). I don't see how asking
> > >> an already overburdened project to bootstrap their own ability to work
> > >> on the project fulltime by adding marketing, sales, client relations,
> > >> and other business needs, will end up helping any PMC other than those
> > >> who already have companies sponsoring development. Simply look at the
> > >> various states of what each PMC's website looks like, and you can
> > >> probably figure out which PMCs would still be highly unlikely to be
> > >> able to market themselves.
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:10 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Worth checking.
> > >>>
> > >>> Seems to be possible for other non-profits with the same regime (see
> > the
> > >>> list of the hosts there).
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the big difference here is not that the ASF points to
> > >>> OpenCollective, but that Open Collective points to ASF as the "host"
> > and
> > >>> the PMC initiatives point to ASF as "host" when they join open
> > >> collective -
> > >>> not the other way round. ASF barely accepts those initiatives to use
> > >> their
> > >>> legal entity for invoicing (at least that's how I see it, probably
> > there
> > >>> are some implications involving responsibilities).
> > >>>
> > >>> That makes a whole world of difference because ASF is pretty passively
> > >>> involved in this relation, not actively promoting anyone except of
> > doing
> > >>> the invoicing and handling payments (which I think is perfectly fine
> > with
> > >>> the non-profit status of it as ASF does a lot of invoicing already).
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:01 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > >> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Jarek,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But I still can't believe this could be legal for the ASF to do. I
> > >> would
> > >>>> love it to be ok, but right now it's even problematic to even have
> > >> links to
> > >>>> commercial offerings regarding Apache projects, because that would
> > >> endanger
> > >>>> our non-profit status. I just can't believe something like this could
> > >> even
> > >>>> be possible.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chris
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2022 17:53
> > >>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And a comment - if, and only if ASF could become the Fiscal Host for
> > >> all
> > >>>> those initiatives and it would be legal from the point of view of the
> > >>>> bylaws of the Foundation, this concern of yours Chris should be
> > >>>> automatically handled:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I mean with most companies in the Industry, they only work with
> > >>>>> preferred
> > >>>> vendors and they have a limited amount of “slots” on that list. So,
> > >> they
> > >>>> usually have business relationships with the bigger companies. If we
> > >> don’t
> > >>>> have a good open-source Support Inc. able to fill one of these slots,
> > >> it
> > >>>> doesn’t matter how many there are.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The invoicing would be directly with the ASF - even though ASF would
> > >> not
> > >>>> be "owning" the relationship. Yeah. That precludes any "Agreement"
> > >> with the
> > >>>> ASF, but maybe there are a number of companies that would be open to
> > >> the
> > >>>> approach that they are supporting an initiative from a PMC but the
> > >> invoice
> > >>>> goes to the ASF. This is even better that a separate legal entity with
> > >> ASF
> > >>>> blessing (but of course there are many legal/responsibility etc.
> > >>>> questions such setup involves - which is more on the legal side).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> J.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:43 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> What does it mean to “enable” marketing? If that’s the same level
> > >> of
> > >>>>> marketing we get at the ASF already, then it’s dead in the water for
> > >>>>> most projects.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The best is to show an example here.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is the initiative I recently supported
> > >>>>> https://opencollective.com/devfest-for-ukraine/ (And I heartily
> > >>>>> recommend it - I know the organizers and they are very legit).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Enable marketing" in the sense that OpenCollective pre-vets their
> > >>>>> collectives and you can market it yourself via social media and other
> > >>>>> channels and it is not a scam. I think anyone running any kind of
> > >>>>> collective like that (including PMCs and others) are responsible for
> > >>>>> their own marketing, using the networking, social media, tools,
> > >> direct
> > >>>>> outreach etc. Expecting that someone will do it for you is not going
> > >> to
> > >>>> work.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Having a landing page like that which is hosted with a reputable
> > >>>>> organisation that pre-vets their campaigns and one that you can see
> > >>>>> who the people are, you can see who else is supporting it is a
> > >>>>> fantastic marketing tool that you can use. And this is really good
> > >>>>> value that such organisations can bring.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> J.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:28 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> What does it mean to “enable” marketing? If that’s the same level of
> > >>>>>> marketing we get at the ASF already, then it’s dead in the water for
> > >>>>>> most projects.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> —
> > >>>>>> Matt Sicker
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On May 9, 2022, at 10:22, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think the non-profit charity aspect definitely would disqualify
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> ASF
> > >>>>>>> as being one of these Fiscal Hosts. But in general, it does sound
> > >>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>> could be something usable, just not using the ASF as Fiscal Host.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I am not sure to be honest. From at least looking at the
> > >>>>>>> description of what Fiscal Host is, this is mainly about "legal
> > >>>>>>> entity", "being able to issue invoices" and that's about it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Even if you look at the fiscal hosts that the open-collective
> > >>>>>>> manages,
> > >>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>> have a 501(C) US-Based charity foundation as one of the fiscal
> > >> hosts:
> > >>>>>>> https://opencollective.com/foundation - which I think is the
> > >> same
> > >>>>>> regime
> > >>>>>>> as the ASF.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> See:
> > >>>>>>> https://docs.opencollective.com/help/fiscal-hosts/fiscal-hosts
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:11 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > >>>>>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Roman and Jarek,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> well the reason I was proposing something new was that I did try
> > >>>>>>>> to participate with some of the existing initiatives like
> > >>>>>>>> Tidelift, but
> > >>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>> showed a great amount of disinterest. It seems as if only the
> > >>>>>>>> projects
> > >>>>>> big
> > >>>>>>>> enough are considered worthy of being supported. The entity I
> > >>>>>>>> proposed should be available for any project, no matter what
> > >> size it
> > >>>> is.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Yes, it could just be a new company and wouldn't need to have the
> > >>>>>> blessing
> > >>>>>>>> of the ASF, but then there would be yet another Support Inc.
> > >>>>>> Effectively
> > >>>>>>>> all splitting the cake up into smaller pieces hereby keeping each
> > >>>>>>>> one
> > >>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>> not reaching the breaking point in which things would start
> > >>>>>>>> running on their own.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> That's why I thought: Something with explicit ties to the ASF
> > >>>>>>>> could benefit from being considered the “official” way to get
> > >>>>>>>> support or at
> > >>>>>> least
> > >>>>>>>> the way the ASF considers to be absolutely in-line with its
> > >>>>>>>> policies
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> might help reaching the critical mass needed to work.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I mean with most companies in the Industry, they only work with
> > >>>>>> preferred
> > >>>>>>>> vendors and they have a limited amount of “slots” on that list.
> > >>>>>>>> So,
> > >>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>> usually have business relationships with the bigger companies. If
> > >>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>> don’t
> > >>>>>>>> have a good open-source Support Inc. able to fill one of these
> > >>>>>>>> slots,
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter how many there are.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> In general, I’d be happy, if an existing company could provide
> > >>>>>>>> this service, but as I mentioned, my condition for accepting this
> > >>>>>>>> as a
> > >>>>>> solution
> > >>>>>>>> would be that every project wanting to do so, could do their
> > >>>>>>>> business though them. Tidelift has proven to only select the
> > >> filet
> > >>>>>>>> parts, which
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>> consider inacceptable for being considered as being a solution to
> > >>>>>>>> this problem.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And to what Jarek said. I think the non-profit charity aspect
> > >>>>>> definitely
> > >>>>>>>> would disqualify the ASF as being one of these Fiscal Hosts. But
> > >>>>>>>> in general, it does sound like they could be something usable,
> > >>>>>>>> just not
> > >>>>>> using
> > >>>>>>>> the ASF as Fiscal Host.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2022 11:49
> > >>>>>>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Very good points Roman. I think it's great to think about it with
> > >>>>>>>> the building business "mindset" - this is the only way it can
> > >>>>>>>> actually
> > >>>>>> succeed.
> > >>>>>>>> But maybe we do not have to go this way.
> > >>>>>>>> The #1 seems much more attractive and there are other options.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think Open Collective is as close as it can be to the 'Apache
> > >> Way"
> > >>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>> it comes to enablers and the economy of scale is already there I
> > >>>> think.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I've been participating with several campaigns now through them -
> > >>>>>>>> they seem to be they don't even want to "own the relation"
> > >> between
> > >>>>>>>> the "collective individuals" and "sponsors".
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> They seem to be pretty much 100% of what I consider as "enabler"
> > >> -
> > >>>>>>>> https://opencollective.com/how-it-works:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * Managing payments and admin
> > >>>>>>>> * enabling easy marketing and promotion
> > >>>>>>>> * basically enabling a group of people to establish effective,
> > >>>>>> repeating
> > >>>>>>>> campaigns and building long-lasting relationships generally
> > >>>>>>>> focused on "doing good".
> > >>>>>>>> * the "collectives" decide themselves on the scope and conditions
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> campaign they run - but eventually it's all based on the
> > >>>>>>>> reputation of
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> people who run the collective to be trusted by the supporters.
> > >>>>>>>> * you can organize your "collective" there without legally
> > >>>>>> incorporating
> > >>>>>>>> it (by a group of individuals) and get anyone to support it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think the only remaining question is - how feasible and
> > >>>>>>>> attractive
> > >>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>>> "collective" might be for Sponsoring companies.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And there is an interesting option that might be actually a good
> > >>>>>> response
> > >>>>>>>> to it and a way how such a collective **might** get reputation.
> > >>>>>>>> The Apache Software Foundation **could** become a "Fiscal Host"
> > >>>>>>>> there
> > >> https://docs.opencollective.com/help/fiscal-hosts/fiscal-hosts
> > >>>> - i.e.
> > >>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>> entity that holds the funds and manages the legal/bank account
> > >> but
> > >>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> not involved in any way with the contracts and decisions of the
> > >>>>>>>> "collective".
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> A fiscal host is a legal company or individual who holds a
> > >>>>>>>> Collective’s funds in their bank account and can generate
> > >> invoices
> > >>>>>>>> and receipts for supporters and sponsors. You can think of a
> > >>>>>>>> fiscal host as an umbrella organization for the Collectives in
> > >> it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think such "Fiscal Host" is precisely the "missing" link we did
> > >>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>> so far. Of course it needs to be checked from the legal side -
> > >>>>>>>> what is
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> responsibility and whether it is in-line with the ASF bylaws and
> > >>>>>> mission,
> > >>>>>>>> but seems like becoming "Fiscal Host" in open collective is
> > >>>>>>>> precisely
> > >>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>> the ASF could do. And then it gets even better, because such
> > >>>>>>>> Fiscal
> > >>>>>> Host
> > >>>>>>>> might host mutliple collectives:
> > >>>>>>>> - one per PMC for example - why not
> > >>>>>>>> - "Security at the ASF" - for multiple projects
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And many others. The nice thing there is that IF the ASF will not
> > >>>>>> charge
> > >>>>>>>> the collectives, OpenCollective does not charge their 15% cut.
> > >> And
> > >>>>>>>> any collective can "apply" to be hosted by a fiscal host. I am
> > >> not
> > >>>>>>>> sure
> > >>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>> are the rules and policies there, but I believe the collectives
> > >>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>> to be
> > >>>>>>>> "approved" by the ASF host. And this is as close to "endorsement"
> > >>>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>> actually a legal responsibility as it can be. The "sponsors"
> > >> would
> > >>>>>>>> deal with the ASF that would issue the invoices, while the
> > >>>>>>>> "business relationship" of Sponsor will be with the collective
> > >>>> organizers.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> This really sounds rather cool if we could make ASF become such a
> > >>>>>> Fiscal
> > >>>>>>>> Host.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Few claims they do:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * "Unlike other crowdfunding platforms, Open Collective is
> > >>>>>>>> designed for ongoing collaborations. That means your funding and
> > >>>>>>>> community of
> > >>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>> doesn’t disappear after a single campaign, or if the initial
> > >>>>>>>> organizers move on.
> > >>>>>>>> * "Our code is fully transparent and open source, just like our
> > >>>> budget.
> > >>>>>>>> You own your data: we’ll never sell it or lock you in."
> > >>>>>>>> * "Open Collective uniquely combines a powerful tech platform
> > >> with
> > >>>>>> fiscal
> > >>>>>>>> hosting, enabling Collectives to raise and spend money without
> > >>>>>>>> legally incorporating, worrying about taxes, or opening a bank
> > >>>> account."
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:16 AM Roman Shaposhnik
> > >>>>>>>> <ro...@shaposhnik.org
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Chris, thanks for sort of reviving the old thread I had before
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> war: I'm slowly coming back to my more regular Open Source life
> > >>>>>>>>> from all the craziness of the past two months. Because of that,
> > >>>>>>>>> there's not much to report back -- but I will share a few points
> > >>>>>>>>> and comment on a few of yours. Hope this will help move things
> > >>>> along.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 3:11 PM Christofer Dutz
> > >>>>>>>>> <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> now that the Aprils Fool Joke has worn off a bit, I think I can
> > >>>>>>>>>> post
> > >>>>>>>>> this here. I at first suggested this in the board list before
> > >>>>>>>>> April 1st, as I wanted to make sure this hasn’t been wiped off
> > >>>>>>>>> the table as a silly idea before.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Turns out that I didn’t get a single “silly idea” response.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> As you all might know I have been working on finding ways to
> > >>>>>>>>>> finance my
> > >>>>>>>>> work on open-source, but in an open-source way that others can
> > >>>>>>>>> also profit from what I might find out.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> There are some projects that managed to form or attract
> > >>>>>>>>>> companies to
> > >>>>>>>>> grow around them. These usually don’t have problems finding
> > >> funds
> > >>>>>>>>> to finance further development.
> > >>>>>>>>>> However, we also have a large number of projects that are not
> > >> as
> > >>>>>>>>>> big, or
> > >>>>>>>>> a large number of people working on our projects, but don’t work
> > >>>>>>>>> for those companies.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> So, these people are generally relying on finding contracts
> > >>>>>> themselves.
> > >>>>>>>>> This usually is problematic as many larger companies don’t do
> > >>>>>>>>> business with individuals.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Also is it often tricky to get the legal documents and
> > >> contracts
> > >>>>>>>>>> right
> > >>>>>>>>> and then not even talking about how long payments usually take.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Another thing is that the ASF is a non-profit organization and
> > >>>>>>>>>> therefore
> > >>>>>>>>> it’s challenging to advertise commercial offerings around Apache
> > >>>>>>>> projects.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> As an example: One of the things I found out with my
> > >>>>>>>>>> crowd-funding
> > >>>>>>>>> experiment is that this doesn’t work. Admittedly I wasn’t
> > >>>>>>>>> expecting it to work. Companies just can’t donate large amounts
> > >>>>>>>>> of money without any assurances. But I did learn one thing: My
> > >>>>>>>>> crowd-funding experiment was in a way the most successful thing
> > >> I
> > >>>> did.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The thing was, that I listed up things that could be on the
> > >>>>>>>>>> roadmap and
> > >>>>>>>>> I added a price-tag to them. This is one thing an Apache project
> > >>>>>>>>> just couldn’t do. So even if I didn’t get a single cent in
> > >>>>>>>>> donations for my work, I was approached by multiple companies
> > >>>>>>>>> willing to finance individual campaigns, but with a normal
> > >>>> consulting contract.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Now there are also companies like Tidelift, that want to close
> > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> gap.
> > >>>>>>>>> However, we are still a bit unsure how to align the interest of
> > >>>>>>>>> that company with the values of the ASF. And there’s the fact
> > >>>>>>>>> that not everyone is able to profit from Tidelift. I for example
> > >>>>>>>>> tried reaching out to them several times for offering commercial
> > >>>>>>>>> PLC4X support, but the only responses I got, were people wanting
> > >>>>>>>>> to discuss how my business could profit from using more
> > >>>>>>>>> open-source ;-) So for me Tidelift is not an option as not
> > >> everyone
> > >>>> can use it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Now let me get to my idea:
> > >>>>>>>>>> What If there was a separate legal entity closely related to
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> ASF
> > >>>>>>>>> (Let’s call it “Support Inc.” for now). I would even propose
> > >> that
> > >>>>>>>>> the oversight entity for Support Inc. should be the ASF board.
> > >>>>>>>>> This would assure the company is perfectly in-line with the ASF
> > >> and
> > >>>> its values.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> First of all, I 100% agree with Sam -- there's absolutely 0
> > >>>>>>>>> reason that I see these two entities should have (structurally!)
> > >>>>>>>>> any more ties than ASF and let's say Cloudera. If you disagree
> > >> on
> > >>>>>>>>> that point strongly -- now would be a good time to list all your
> > >>>> reasons for why.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Back to building an independent business: my hypothesis back
> > >> when
> > >>>>>>>>> I started the Tidelift thread is that we basically have two
> > >> choices:
> > >>>>>>>>> 1. piggy back off of somebody who is already doing a similar
> > >>>>>>>>> kind of a business (and convince them to tweak it to be fully
> > >>>>>>>>> aligned with ASF's vision) 2. have a brand new business
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This thread of yours seem to be focused on #2 so I'll stay with
> > >>>>>>>>> that (and will comment on #1 in a separate thread).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'll start with saying that I've been talking to a LOT of my VC
> > >>>>>>>>> and OSS Foundations friends about #2 lately and the consensus
> > >>>>>>>>> seems to be that it is all about the economics of bootstrapping
> > >>>>>>>>> this kind of a business. The economics simply doesn't seem to
> > >>>>>>>>> work out (at least not in the US market) until you hit a certain
> > >>>>>>>>> number of customers AND committers in what, effectively, can be
> > >>>>>>>>> described as a marketplace. We can debated at what # of both of
> > >>>>>>>>> these you can hope to be at least somewhat revenue neutral, but
> > >>>>>>>>> it is pretty clear that the numbers are significant.
> > >> Effectively,
> > >>>> you need seed money.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This kind of seed money can either come from (please add to the
> > >>>>>>>>> list if I missed anything):
> > >>>>>>>>> 1. large Co's (FANG, etc.)
> > >>>>>>>>> 2. traditional VCs
> > >>>>>>>>> 3. non-traditional VCs
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> #1 I am not hopeful -- and if there's anyone on this list who
> > >> can
> > >>>>>>>>> help move a needle in that direction I'd love to hear about that
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> #2 the feedback universally is "you're proposing to build a
> > >>>>>>>>> marketplace, there's a few already (e.g. Tidelif), please
> > >> explain
> > >>>>>>>>> why yours will be any better/different/etc. -- if you can't at
> > >>>>>>>>> least go talk to existing ones and try to join forces"
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> #3 (this could be something as crazy as Elon Musk seeding it
> > >> btw)
> > >>>>>>>>> is where I'm focusing right now (plus a bit of "go talk to them"
> > >>>>>>>>> from #2)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> At any rate -- until there's a concrete proposal about where
> > >> this
> > >>>>>>>>> kind of money can come from -- I don't think we will be making
> > >>>>>>>>> any progress.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> But suppose we (and by "we" here I mean a group of individuals
> > >> in
> > >>>>>>>>> the ASF who would want to step up as founders of something like
> > >>>>>>>>> this) did get some money -- we will have to have some rules of
> > >>>>>>>>> engagement with the ASF.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That seems to be the rest of your points:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Individuals could sign up on Support Inc’s website for
> > >> providing
> > >>>>>>>>> commercial services around Apache projects. These services could
> > >>>>>>>>> be Consulting, Feature development, Training, Commercial
> > >> Support.
> > >>>>>>>>>> On this site a user could also add possible feature-development
> > >>>>>>>>> campaigns with a price-tag attached, just like I did on my
> > >> website.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> If a company wants to finance a feature, get support,
> > >>>>>>>>>> consulting, or
> > >>>>>>>>> training around an Apache project, this would be the well-known
> > >>>>>>>>> website somebody would go to first.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Support Inc. would provide the contracts
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Obvious point, but this is exactly where the liability starts
> > >> and
> > >>>>>>>>> it needs to be managed (for which seed $$$ is required).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent
> > >>>>>>>>> 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Yup. The economy of scale will obviously help, but not until we
> > >>>>>>>>> hit 100s of participants in our marketplace.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Also, would Support Inc. be a bigger company the customer would
> > >>>>>>>>>> be doing
> > >>>>>>>>> business with, which would probably ease the problem of getting
> > >>>>>>>>> into the companies with Chris Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Business development/marketing for Support Inc. will also
> > >> require
> > >>>>>> seed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The contracts would be between the Support Inc. and the
> > >>>>>>>>>> customer, and
> > >>>>>>>>> the customer would pay to Support Inc. The developer would have
> > >> a
> > >>>>>>>>> contract with Support Inc. and be paid from this but give
> > >> Support
> > >>>> Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>> a certain percentage of the contact to cover its expenses (But
> > >> in
> > >>>>>>>>> contrast to other pure for-profit companies, this cut would be a
> > >>>>>>>>> lot
> > >>>>>>>> less than usual).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Again -- typical marketplace mechanics -- all great but (cue
> > >> tons
> > >>>>>>>>> of MBA articles on Uber, etc.) requires "buying" at least one
> > >> end
> > >>>>>>>>> of it (typically with VC money) first.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Now a developer could probably choose from different models,
> > >>>>>>>>>> where he
> > >>>>>>>>> gets paid instantly (but then give Support Inc. a bigger cut of
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> profits) or wait for the customer to pay.
> > >>>>>>>>>> The services the new company would provide, would be taking
> > >> care
> > >>>>>>>>>> of the
> > >>>>>>>>> payments, the legal issues and provide the infrastructure for
> > >>>>>>>>> finding commercial support offerings.
> > >>>>>>>>>> And if people know this is something integrated into the
> > >> general
> > >>>>>>>>> open-source ecosystem, I assume people would probably try less
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>> screw with as they know it might backfire PR-wise, just like
> > >>>>>>>>> dragging the ASF to court wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> If the company earns money, it could become a sponsor of the
> > >> ASF.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I hope you’re now not going to point at me laughing because I
> > >>>>>>>>>> like the
> > >>>>>>>>> idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I think:
> > >>>>>>>>> 0. I am *really* excited about this -- to a point where I'd
> > >> love
> > >>>>>>>>> to be one of the founder's in a business like that, but we need
> > >>>>>>>>> at least a few more 1. I DO NOT think it is viable as an
> > >>>>>>>>> "organic growth" type of a business -- hence it'll required seed
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Putting both of these together -- for now I'll focus on trying
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>> finding an existing marketplace we can mold to our needs. I'm
> > >>>>>>>>> still bullish on Tidelift, but I need to re-start a few
> > >>>>>>>>> discussions with them on particulars.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>> Roman.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
