If we take the maintenance of an OpenSource project as a business, we
need to figure out the market share of the OpenSource project.
The more popular a project, the more easy we can get the money from
the user of the project. I think that is why TideLift has a bar for
the supported OpenSource project.
I'm not quite sure about the relationship between "Support Inc." and ASF.
ASF is a non-profit organization and a vendor neutral organization.
ASF is not supposed to endorse the "Support Inc" to provide commercial
support for Apache projects.
I can see there are some PMC members started a new business companies
behind the Apache projects, even though they are still contributing to
the project, but they cannot use the Apache project branding for their
commercial product. I don't think we can mix charity work with
business work together in the same organization, we should put a clean
line between the ASF and the company.
Just my 2 cents.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:32 AM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
