Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Olson <address@hidden> writes:

> tor 2012-05-24 klockan 11:28 +0200 skrev David Kastrup:
>> I mention funding problems for my work at the end of the talk.  It turns
>> out that this month has dropped so far in one-time monetary
>> contributions compared to the rather slow uptake of regular
>> contributions that the minimal amount for being able to afford housing,
>> eating, and health insurance will likely be missed significantly.  So
>> I'll have to pitch in again from my private savings, and they are not
>> excessive.  If the situation does not rise to the level of at least bare
>> life support soonish, I will not be able to afford working on LilyPond
>> any more.  Read the gist of the story at
>> <URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24&lang=en#an_urgent_request_for_funding>
>> and successive LilyPond Report issues for my reports on the success of
>> my request.
>
> When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be
> donated only if some target level is reached by all donations
> together?  I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they
> know that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what
> makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond
> full time.

Since I invested more half a year of fulltime work on my own savings
before even starting to seriously ask for donations, and since people
don't pay more than one or two months in advance, the only person really
losing money when I stop working on LilyPond is myself.  Everybody else
gets more developer time than they paid for, and it is not like it is
not a total bargain.  And it is not like I cash in donations at the
start of a month, and then tell people I'll quit right away.

> As far as I can tell, such a mechanism isn't described in the payment
> plans you suggest. The plans are clever in themselves, though. For easy
> access, I quote the payment plan proposals:
>
>         The idea is to contribute a fixed minimum, and if a specified
>         target is not reached by all contributions, you contribute
>         proportionally up to a cap. Of course, you are free to pick all
>         three numbers yourself, but here are a few models:
>         
>             • [Regular] €25 per month fixed, no cap. This is the payment
>         plan to pick once everything is sailing smoothly and you don’t
>         want to contribute unduly much or think about it unduly much.
>             • [Lifesaver] Minimum €0, cap €250 per month, monthly target
>         €800. That means that if the target (which basically allows me
>         to postpone my decision to work elsewhere) is reached with
>         everybody’s minimum already, you are not billed. This is the
>         option to pick if you don’t want to support a single person as
>         much as keep the LilyPond project from losing me. You do what is
>         necessary to avoid my leaving, but nothing else. Yes, it will be
>         annoying if it turns out you have to pay the cap more than once,
>         but it will also be annoying for me not even to afford survival
>         in spite of highly qualified work.
>             • [Torchbearer] Minimum €50, cap €150 per month, monthly
>         target €1200. This is a model aimed at being reasonably
>         comfortable for you as well as for me if everything works out.

Well, so far there is actually only one person on a variable plan.
Everybody else has either chosen an unconditional monthly payment (and
usually promised to keep it up for a certain period of time) or one-time
donations.  And since, of course, everybody is free to change his mind
at any time depending on the information I provide about ongoing
payments, it is not like there is much of a danger that I will go
stinking rich because of people "unnecessarily" paying the maximum
amount of money they can afford while on an unconditional payment plan.

You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at
all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole
month on my own.  This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be
able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable
reserves.  I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan
where people pay less in case more is needed.

-- 
David Kastrup