[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation
From: |
MJ Ray |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation |
Date: |
Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:37:46 +0100 |
On 2004-10-01 20:20:49 +0100 Alex Perez <address@hidden>
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, MJ Ray wrote:
What are you basing this on? Why does everyone else seem to have "go
away"
emails from FSF, but no-one has posted one?
I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here, so I will
ask you to
re-phrase/re-iterate, because to me it makes no sense.
Several people have asserted that they think FSF does not want to do
this role. I don't remember anyone posting FSF's answer to doing this
role. I conclude that those people are either concealing useful
information, or they are guessing.
You are more than welcome to question it, but what you seem to not
understand
is that this is a discussion about the possibility of creating this
foundation. [...]
Then you need to specify what tasks need to be done and then decide
whether the foundation is the best approach. All going "yes,
foundation" and then deciding its role seems backwards to me. I
assumed (wrongly) that you had already done this in messages to
gnustep-dev which I hadn't seen.
If nobody really bother to use the FSF for doing the fundraising
and the >
promoting, it's quite logically because FSF and GNUstep has
different
goals, > and the FSF is not architectured to deal with that. [...]
Why is this logical? It hasn't happened, therefore this one reason
is the
cause?!?
It's logical because if the FSF were interested in accepting money
for GNU
sub-projects, they would have a mechanism for doing so on their
website,
which they do not.
The FSF has published calls for help with their web servers. They do
not have mechanisms for other things which they are interested in
doing on their web site. I think your reasoning for that conclusion is
flawed.
I have no problem with Adam going to the FSF and asking themif they
can
collect and disseminate money to us, but frankly they would likely
take a cut
for their administrative costs.
If US law is like English law, they cannot do that. They must only use
donations for their administrative costs or general use to pay their
costs. (If it's not similar, tell me: it wouldn't be the first time I
thought US law broken. ;-) )
Why would it not be FSF appointing people involved in the project,
as
present?
If the FSF is involved with taking money for us, it is inevitable
that
someone who has NOTHING to do with the GNUstep project would be
handling
money destined for us. That's his point. I'd also prefer not to have
this
situation be the case unless it buys us something.
If we pay the money into a bank ourselves, it is inevitable that
someone who has NOTHING to do with the GNUstep project would be
handling money for us. I'm sorry, but I don't want all our donations
in a developer's matress.
More seriously, aren't there laws to ensure proper handling of
donations?
That is how I have understood the explainations until today.
According to
those, the foundation will hire and fire developers,
No.
and the foundation must have non-developer managers to be seen as
legitimate.
Uh, no. Keep pulling stuff out of your arse, why don't you...
I think you mean "I don't believe you. Can you give me references?"
you foul-mouthed S&M fan.
Gregory John Casamento seemed to say that non-developer managers would
make the Foundation more legitimate in
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-09/msg00016.html
but has said he holds the opposite position since I sent the message
you replied to.
The same author suggested hiring GNUsteppers and companies to
contribute code in
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-09/msg00010.html
Adam Fedor suggested buying icons in
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-09/msg00021.html
You're letting your paranoia run unchecked, in my opinion. I am sure
you will
disagree, but you are more than welcome to.
I've been involved with not-for-profits for nearly half my life now
and have helped to create and/or run some of them. It's not paranoia:
it's experience.
I don't really think we can have worse marketing than what we have
now [...]
Marketing was not a suggested role of the foundation.
Yes it was! What is your problem?
Can you give me a reference, please?
Most recently, Nicolas Roard opined that the foundation would probably
not do the marketing itself in
https://mail.gna.org/public/gnustep-marketing/2004-10/msg00013.html
Also, I think you are being rude to those who have tried in the past
by
calling their efforts "nothing".
And you aren't being rude?? Maybe I'm missing something here...
I try to be polite, not matter how much you are insulting me.
[...] It's not rocket science, and the skills needed to run a
non-protif
501(c)(3) or 527 in the USA are nearly indistinguishable from those
required
to run a normal corporation.
Does the USA have an equivalent of England's Charity Commissioners
that check you are using the money only for charitable purposes and
that you are not funding your holidays with the donations? How much
time and money does it typically cost to run a normal corporation in
the USA?
Proper marketing requires money. The moment you bring more than small
amounts
of money into the picture, you need an entity so the people who
manage the
money can be held accountable if embezzlement ever happens. [...]
Of course. It is not a short step from this to creating a new entity,
though.
Multiple people have noted that you seem to have this uncanny ability
to
latch on to one little thing and not let go.
I don't think this is a little thing. I'm actually looking for and not
finding the big pictures in some of these messages. Instead, people
seem to be going gooshy over creating a new foundation, when it's not
even clear what it would do.
I'm not going to let go: this is important to me. We might be wasting
volunteer effort and our supporters' money. I would be ashamed of
that.
Unfortunately, however much the lurkers support you in email, I have
real questions that you should consider before rushing into this.
Raising concerns we welcome; indiscriminate criticism we do not.
It's not indiscriminate. It's very discriminating: it seeks the
information certain posters should have to support their claims.
We're all on the same side here, fighting for the same ultimate goal.
Never
lose sight of that.
I haven't. Have you? The FSF is on our side too, but some foundation
advocates seem willing to insult our friends and second-guess their
wishes, apparently without much evidence. I have been politely asking
GNUsteppers for years to engage with FSF more. If FSF and GNUstep are
too remote for you, you should accept that this is GNUsteppers' fault
too.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, (continued)
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Nicolas Roard, 2004/10/01
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, MJ Ray, 2004/10/01
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Nicolas Roard, 2004/10/01
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, MJ Ray, 2004/10/01
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Gregory John Casamento, 2004/10/01
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, MJ Ray, 2004/10/01
- Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Gregory John Casamento, 2004/10/01
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Alex Perez, 2004/10/01
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation,
MJ Ray <=
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Gregory John Casamento, 2004/10/01
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, MJ Ray, 2004/10/01
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, Nicola Pero, 2004/10/01
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation, MJ Ray, 2004/10/01