[Bacula-users] RE: [Bacula-devel] Re: Open Source Funding Idea (Problems and Strategies in Financing Voluntary Free Software Projects)
> > I think another aspect that we haven't seen a lot of > discussion on is > > transparency and accountability, which is often the big catch with > > commercial donors. > > I don't think this is a really big problem. First, I am > someone very open. I have no problem with keeping things > transparent. The few conversations I have off-list, for > example, are typically private or items that would interest > very few persons such as release packaging problems (bugs), ... > Concerning accountability, in general, that won't be a > problem either as I must have been an accountant in a former > life because I have no problem doing the bookkeeping for a > number of corporations that ran in the past. I would tend to disagree, but only on the grounds that people with money and resources have a nasty tendency to demand to know how their money is used in a regularized and formal manner, and (at least here in the US) they may be required to report that through other channels as part of their compliance regime in their industries. Most commercial entities would expect to have a formal audit report for how funds were spent, and how the choices are made. As a person, I don't think anyone has problems with you being honest and trustworthy. Corporations are a whole different kind of rat. My day employer probably would not allow contributing to the project without a formalized public method of dealing with the transparancy and accounting issues. Even my evening consulting business would probably be more likely to contribute if that process was in place. > > One idea I've been toying with proposing is the idea of having a > > formally reviewed proposal process (similar to applying for > a grant) > > for projects to be funded by the foundation. The formal > review would > > include estimates of time, level of effort, timelines, and formal > > requirements for documentation and code standards. Asking > someone to > > think about these things in advance tends to sort the serious > > contributors from the kibitzers. I believe the Apache and > Samba folks have adopted this approach for this very reason. > > Yes, this is a good idea, but it is probably a bit early for > this simply because we don't have sufficient numbers of > contributors. If we had 10 programmers submitting code, this > would be critical, but when it is one or two as it is now, > there isn't much need. I would just observe that you should start out as you mean to continue. If you plan to hold people accountable for delivering what you provide them resources to do, then that's your model and you should stick to it. "Ask Kern" doesn't scale very well, and you *really* want this to scale. > I'm thinking about transitioning into something like Debian > does, where a certain funding is really important, but they > don't actually pay programmers. > Paying programmers is what seems to create the conflicts or > "crowding out". Resources allocated by the foundation would not necessarily be monetary. Access to equipment and development tools could also be part of a "grant". For example, I've got development machines I personally own for about a dozen different OS and CPU architectures, and some tape changer hardware that's mine to play with. What I had considered doing was making access to that development lab for a autobuild farm and testing lab my contribution to the foundation. No money involved, but we would need to coordinate who's using it, and I'd like to know how it's being used (there are some tax advantages in the US to lending hardware to non-profit projects). > As for funding those projects, I'm thinking that Bacula, at > least in the near future, will not fund them. However, > something that has worked in the past is that if one or more > corporations want a particular feature that is on this > project list, then they will have several options of getting it done: > 1. supply programmers to do it under Bacula supervision. > 2. submit a patch (not really recommended -- not so long ago, > I rejected a pretty big patch). > 3. provide funding incentives for programmers. All of which really require some kind of coordination to keep the code stable and clean. I'll think about it a bit more. I still think there needs to be a clearly defined mechanism for how that problem list gets tackled, but it bears some skull sweat to think this through. > Well, I don't know if Bacula is really ready for the bigger > storage management > conferences, but they would be well worth attending so that I > can get a good > feeling of what is necessary in the longer run. I get good turnout when *I* talk about it -- 50-75 people in sessions. As the author, you're likely to get a much better turnout...8-) --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driv
[Bacula-users] RE: [Bacula-devel] Re: Open Source Funding Idea (Problems and Strategies in Financing Voluntary Free Software Projects)
> Yes, indeed. This is a very interesting article. I was aware > of the problems of funding especially bad feelings that can > develop when certain developers are paid and others not, but > I had never considered it from an angle of "crowing-out" of > volunteer programmers. This "crowding-out" of volunteers is > clearly something that I don't want to happen as I want > Bacula to remain free and open rather than commercial or > semi-commercial. I think another aspect that we haven't seen a lot of discussion on is transparency and accountability, which is often the big catch with commercial donors. One idea I've been toying with proposing is the idea of having a formally reviewed proposal process (similar to applying for a grant) for projects to be funded by the foundation. The formal review would include estimates of time, level of effort, timelines, and formal requirements for documentation and code standards. Asking someone to think about these things in advance tends to sort the serious contributors from the kibitzers. I believe the Apache and Samba folks have adopted this approach for this very reason. The review of the proposal would be conducted by Kern and a technical review body selected by him for technical relevance, usefulness, and furthering the general good. The proposals could then be ranked based on that technical review, and funded from the foundation accordingly. Some risk management controls would need to be implemented (along with a legal obligation to repay the foundation if you receive money and don't complete the project). Proposals would be open to anyone, and repeat proposals would be encouraged -- if you have a track record of doing good work, that should be a plus in your favor. Perhaps that idea could be combined with the "authorized providers" idea in that they could become part of that technical review body -- if you contribute resources/money, your opinion of what should be prioritized should (IMHO) count a little bit more than the random community at large (the "put up or shut up" model). Contributions of time should count as well as funding. > What I would like to encourage is > a few more long time contributors that work in the core code. See above. While most of us do this for the love of it, a little money coming back in makes it a lot easier to convince the PTBs of the importance of the work. Even a token amount goes a long way to making that case, and if there's a clear audit trail, I think a lot of organizations would be interested. > This is the major area that is lacking in Bacula. Perhaps > this will happen over time, perhaps it will improve if I > start making a few public appearances next year in free > software meetings. > Any suggestions from anyone along this line would be welcome. I'd also start hitting the bigger storage management conferences. The IBM zSeries Expo in EMEA would be a good place to reach a lot of the enterprise-level customers, as would Guide/SHARE Europe (usually colocated with above). --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Re: Open Source Funding Idea (Problems and Strategies in Financing Voluntary Free Software Projects)
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 23:40, David Boyes wrote: > > > I think another aspect that we haven't seen a lot of > > > > discussion on is > > > > > transparency and accountability, which is often the big catch with > > > commercial donors. > > > > I don't think this is a really big problem. First, I am > > someone very open. I have no problem with keeping things > > transparent. The few conversations I have off-list, for > > example, are typically private or items that would interest > > very few persons such as release packaging problems (bugs), ... > > Concerning accountability, in general, that won't be a > > problem either as I must have been an accountant in a former > > life because I have no problem doing the bookkeeping for a > > number of corporations that ran in the past. > > I would tend to disagree, but only on the grounds that people with money > and resources have a nasty tendency to demand to know how their money is > used in a regularized and formal manner, and (at least here in the US) they > may be required to report that through other channels as part of their > compliance regime in their industries. Most commercial entities would > expect to have a formal audit report for how funds were spent, and how the > choices are made. > > As a person, I don't think anyone has problems with you being honest and > trustworthy. Corporations are a whole different kind of rat. My day > employer probably would not allow contributing to the project without a > formalized public method of dealing with the transparancy and accounting > issues. Even my evening consulting business would probably be more likely > to contribute if that process was in place. Thanks for your confidence in me. As I say, I don't think this will be a problem. I am used to accounting for every cent of income and every cent of expenditures and producing balance sheets. > > > > One idea I've been toying with proposing is the idea of having a > > > formally reviewed proposal process (similar to applying for > > > > a grant) > > > > > for projects to be funded by the foundation. The formal > > > > review would > > > > > include estimates of time, level of effort, timelines, and formal > > > requirements for documentation and code standards. Asking > > > > someone to > > > > > think about these things in advance tends to sort the serious > > > contributors from the kibitzers. I believe the Apache and > > > > Samba folks have adopted this approach for this very reason. > > > > Yes, this is a good idea, but it is probably a bit early for > > this simply because we don't have sufficient numbers of > > contributors. If we had 10 programmers submitting code, this > > would be critical, but when it is one or two as it is now, > > there isn't much need. > > I would just observe that you should start out as you mean to continue. If > you plan to hold people accountable for delivering what you provide them > resources to do, then that's your model and you should stick to it. "Ask > Kern" doesn't scale very well, and you *really* want this to scale. Yes, I agree, and that is what I concider critical -- "Ask Kern" means there is a problem, and the problem is quite simple. There is no other person that has been working consistently on the core code for any length of time. I've indicated my method of trying to resolve this: 1. Attend meetings, present Bacula (this will start next spring). 2. Stop implementing all the projects and wait for others to come along. As long as I am doing most of the core programming, what is the incentive for someone to help? Other ideas would of course be welcome. > > > I'm thinking about transitioning into something like Debian > > does, where a certain funding is really important, but they > > don't actually pay programmers. > > Paying programmers is what seems to create the conflicts or > > "crowding out". > > Resources allocated by the foundation would not necessarily be monetary. > Access to equipment and development tools could also be part of a "grant". > For example, I've got development machines I personally own for about a > dozen different OS and CPU architectures, and some tape changer hardware > that's mine to play with. What I had considered doing was making access to > that development lab for a autobuild farm and testing lab my contribution > to the foundation. No money involved, but we would need to coordinate who's > using it, and I'd like to know how it's being used (there are some tax > advantages in the US to lending hardware to non-profit projects). Yes, these kinds of resources are very valuable. Bacula is already receiving this kind of help in an important way (maintenance of bugs database, hosting the web site, allowing login to testing machines, ...). I doubt that any foundation that I create will be considered as tax exempt in the US because as I understand it, such an organization must be controlled in the US. > > > As for funding those projects, I'm thinking that Bac
[Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Re: Open Source Funding Idea (Problems and Strategies in Financing Voluntary Free Software Projects)
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 20:29, David Boyes wrote: > > Yes, indeed. This is a very interesting article. I was aware > > of the problems of funding especially bad feelings that can > > develop when certain developers are paid and others not, but > > I had never considered it from an angle of "crowing-out" of > > volunteer programmers. This "crowding-out" of volunteers is > > clearly something that I don't want to happen as I want > > Bacula to remain free and open rather than commercial or > > semi-commercial. > > I think another aspect that we haven't seen a lot of discussion on is > transparency and accountability, which is often the big catch with > commercial donors. I don't think this is a really big problem. First, I am someone very open. I have no problem with keeping things transparent. The few conversations I have off-list, for example, are typically private or items that would interest very few persons such as release packaging problems (bugs), ... Concerning accountability, in general, that won't be a problem either as I must have been an accountant in a former life because I have no problem doing the bookkeeping for a number of corporations that ran in the past. > > One idea I've been toying with proposing is the idea of having a formally > reviewed proposal process (similar to applying for a grant) for projects to > be funded by the foundation. The formal review would include estimates of > time, level of effort, timelines, and formal requirements for documentation > and code standards. Asking someone to think about these things in advance > tends to sort the serious contributors from the kibitzers. I believe the > Apache and Samba folks have adopted this approach for this very reason. Yes, this is a good idea, but it is probably a bit early for this simply because we don't have sufficient numbers of contributors. If we had 10 programmers submitting code, this would be critical, but when it is one or two as it is now, there isn't much need. > > The review of the proposal would be conducted by Kern and a technical > review body selected by him for technical relevance, usefulness, and > furthering the general good. The proposals could then be ranked based on > that technical review, and funded from the foundation accordingly. Some > risk management controls would need to be implemented (along with a legal > obligation to repay the foundation if you receive money and don't complete > the project). Proposals would be open to anyone, and repeat proposals would > be encouraged -- if you have a track record of doing good work, that should > be a plus in your favor. > > Perhaps that idea could be combined with the "authorized providers" idea in > that they could become part of that technical review body -- if you > contribute resources/money, your opinion of what should be prioritized > should (IMHO) count a little bit more than the random community at large > (the "put up or shut up" model). Contributions of time should count as well > as funding. > > > What I would like to encourage is > > a few more long time contributors that work in the core code. > > See above. While most of us do this for the love of it, a little money > coming back in makes it a lot easier to convince the PTBs of the importance > of the work. Even a token amount goes a long way to making that case, and > if there's a clear audit trail, I think a lot of organizations would be > interested. I'm thinking about transitioning into something like Debian does, where a certain funding is really important, but they don't actually pay programmers. Paying programmers is what seems to create the conflicts or "crowding out". What I can imagine, and what I had already planned, is to make a list of projects. Then rather than say that I will implement those projects for the next release, I step back, select one or two smaller things for me, and ask people to step forward for those projects. If no one steps forward, then we will simply not implement those features. As for funding those projects, I'm thinking that Bacula, at least in the near future, will not fund them. However, something that has worked in the past is that if one or more corporations want a particular feature that is on this project list, then they will have several options of getting it done: 1. supply programmers to do it under Bacula supervision. 2. submit a patch (not really recommended -- not so long ago, I rejected a pretty big patch). 3. provide funding incentives for programmers. For item 3, in the past, I have simply put qualified programmers in touch with the corporate sponsors, and they worked out the funding between them. This was the case, for example, for Landon, who wanted the funding to go to EFF. However, other programmers may want to receive the funding themselves. In any case, Bacula would not be directly involved with the funding. This is probably not the best long term solution, but it is a solution for the
[Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Re: Open Source Funding Idea (Problems and Strategies in Financing Voluntary Free Software Projects)
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 13:30, steve apale wrote:
> An interesting read considering the recent discussions on funding.
Yes, indeed. This is a very interesting article. I was aware of the problems
of funding especially bad feelings that can develop when certain developers
are paid and others not, but I had never considered it from an angle of
"crowing-out" of volunteer programmers. This "crowding-out" of volunteers is
clearly something that I don't want to happen as I want Bacula to remain free
and open rather than commercial or semi-commercial.
What I have noticed is that most, for sure not all, of Bacula's contributors
have made one, sometimes important contribution, then gone on to other
things. There is a growing number of long time contributors, which is very
pleasing to me -- thanks guys, and there is a growing number of contributions
as well. What I would like to encourage is a few more long time contributors
that work in the core code. This is the major area that is lacking in
Bacula. Perhaps this will happen over time, perhaps it will improve if I
start making a few public appearances next year in free software meetings.
Any suggestions from anyone along this line would be welcome.
Thanks for the link ...
--
Best regards,
Kern
(">
/\
V_V
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
