RFC: Adding some management structure, particularly for decisions about our donation account

[John Ralls]

On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Christian Stimming wrote:

> Am Montag, 30. Mai 2011 schrieb Christian Stimming:
>> Derek replied:
>>> I agree completely that we need more structure in how to handle money
>>> flowing into the project.
>>> 
>>> I'm still willing to maintain the paypal account, and I promise to be
>>> more responsive if we decide to stick with what we have.
>> 
>> IMHO this means we can probably leave the account as-is, but start to work
>> out a new and durable decision structure for the management of the gnucash
>> donation account. I am thinking of something like a charter with a similar
>> structure as a usual non-profit organization: We should appoint a board
>> (or committee, or similarly named group of people) of 2-5 people who will
>> then have the mandate to decide and take action.
> 
> Judging from the very little reaction on this message here, it seems that 
> almost nobody really cares about the existence of the donation money and/or 
> what is being done with it. In that case we have to continue to live with the 
> unclear decision process about the donation account.
> 
> In particular, if I have some idea about a potential use of the account money 
> (such as starting our own bounty program), I guess I'll just discuss possible 
> uses of this money privately with Derek, then announce those here and go ahead 
> with the proposals unless there are strong objections from core developers. 
> Does that sound reasonable? Other proposals? Comments?

A bounty program isn't necessarily easy. Unless it's well defined, we run the risk of getting in a fight because we rejected somebody's submission -- or we're saddled with crappy code because we didn't. 

Are there really very many experienced and proficient developers waiting in the shadows to help a FOSS project because there's a €100 bounty for implementing some new feature? Seems unlikely, somehow. There are also undoubtedly tax implications for a transaction like that: Its a tangible fee for a defined service. In the US, it depends upon who is doing the paying: If it's an individual (e.g., Derek), the payments aren't reportable. If it's an organization (whether for-profit or not, and whether incorporated or not), payments of more than $600/year to any one person must be reported, meaning that the organization would have to have a tax id... and getting a tax id might trigger the state to come looking for a business license fee... and so it goes. Makes sheltering under the wing of something like the Software Freedom Conservancy [1] look pretty attractive.

Regards, 
John Ralls

[1] http://sfconservancy.org/