[DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

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.

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 and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that). 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.

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).
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.

Chris

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

CCLAs aren't a burden for keeping track of, and some companies do use
them for SGAs, too; I've gotten CCLAs signed before at previous
employers or when I was an independent consultant and got to submit
one for myself as the owner. The fact that some companies insist on
having a CCLA (usually companies with many IP lawyers), though, does
have strong parallels in what Jarek's experiences have been in getting
companies to sign contracts.

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 2:09 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> One small comment.
>
> Just the fact that we are discussing CCLA vs. ICLA is an indication that an
> average contributor who wants to enter into a relationship with a corporate
> customer w/regards to OSS/Apache related work is at a complete loss.
>
> It means that we BADLY need a legal entity that will handle the legal side
> of the relationship.
>
> I've added CCLA only because my lawyers advised me that my Slovakian
> company that I use for my invoicing (which I solely own) should have it  -
> because I issue invoices by this company.
> But I do not expect any of my corporate customers to sign CCLA and put my
> name there  if I am an independent contractor working for them, Being an
> independent vendor/contractor is very different from being an employee in
> this case. That is next to impossible to get CCLA with your name in it when
> you are not an employee. Even if you are an employee in a big company you
> are not likely to get it. So CCLA is generally out of the discussion here.
> ICLA is what matters and recognition of it is (IMHO) something that should
> be in a contract with any vendor. That's where I see the role of "OCC +
> ASF" which could provide legal framework and support for it - to any
> contributor who does not even understand what we are talking about.
>
>  J.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:52 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On May 11, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A CCLA isn't sufficient for contributions at Apache, though. An ICLA
> > > is always required to be a committer, for example, regardless if every
> > > breath you take is copyrighted by your employer. A CCLA can be useful
> > > for documenting whether a corporation has explicitly approved various
> > > individuals they employ to contribute, but it's more of a comfort
> > > thing. If you read the ICLA, you'll see this bit:
> > >
> > >   You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
> > >   license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property
> > >   that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent
> > >   that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf
> > >   of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for
> > >   your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has
> > >   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
> > >
> > > The CCLA is optional because the ICLA already requires that you've
> > > gotten approval from any owners. The CCLA can formally document this,
> > > but it's already implied by the ICLA.
> >
> > True, but (1) I was a brand new committer and (2) it made it clear that my
> > employer could NOT change their mind arbitrarily.
> >
> > I probably could have argued that the company that acquired my employer,
> > my new employer, was bound by the CCLA … the ASF may only require an ICLA,
> > but an individual may prefer that a CCLA is filed, That use case and
> > language is in the ICLA BTW.
> >
> > > or that your employer has
> > >   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
> >
> >
> > I’m not sure why you’re arguing this? Are CCLAs a burden to the Secretary?
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:54 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> When I first signed an ICLA in about 2008 I made sure that I had the
> > company I worked for sign a CCLA that named individuals. This was for my
> > protection otherwise my ASF work was work for hire.
> > >>
> > >> Later that company was acquired and my position was senior enough that
> > all of my work belonged to them.
> > >>
> > >>> On May 11, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
> > >>> contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
> > >>> companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
> > >>> more paperwork.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have
> > problems
> > >>>>> of getting contracts.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
> > >>>>> After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of
> > all of
> > >>>>> these died because the customers can't do business with such small
> > >>>>> companies.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
> > >>>> relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively
> > easy if
> > >>>> you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to
> > speak,
> > >>>> you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud
> > of
> > >>>> what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
> > >>>> difficulty is.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do
> > business"
> > >>>> comes from. My view on this:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have
> > to
> > >>>> "fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
> > >>>>   - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
> > >>>>   - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
> > >>>> labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
> > >>>> companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
> > >>>>   - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
> > >>>> there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what
> > if
> > >>>> the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
> > >>>>   - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money
> > laundering)
> > >>>> W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
> > >>>>   - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if
> > your
> > >>>> company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the
> > political
> > >>>> decisions
> > >>>>   - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations
> > etc.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can
> > provide
> > >>>> such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that
> > step.
> > >>>> Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" -
> > if we
> > >>>> can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden"
> > of
> > >>>> verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and
> > I
> > >>>> think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
> > >>>> combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be
> > done
> > >>>> once to enable all projects basically.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
> > >>>> customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if
> > they
> > >>>> "want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach
> > it and
> > >>>> it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
> > >>>> I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
> > >>>> negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
> > >>>> customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they
> > do
> > >>>> and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the
> > complexity
> > >>>> of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company -
> > we
> > >>>> are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
> > >>>> project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the
> > manager
> > >>>> of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago
> > the
> > >>>> joint statement was "we really want to start working together
> > basically
> > >>>> next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the
> > price, we
> > >>>> know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
> > >>>> needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
> > >>>> community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever
> > had a
> > >>>> contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract
> > from
> > >>>> the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company
> > CCLA) and
> > >>>> this is with the lawyers of the company now.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because
> > (hopefully) we
> > >>>> could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
> > >>>> Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
> > >>>> "service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given
> > and
> > >>>> even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
> > >>>> clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3)
> > as our
> > >>>> relation is a bit different.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS
> > contributors -
> > >>>> have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most
> > of the
> > >>>> vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet
> > and we
> > >>>> fall into "legalities" and contract signing.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There are two kinds of those:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be
> > fulfilled
> > >>>> when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
> > >>>> relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will
> > have
> > >>>> a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable"
> > that
> > >>>> the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
> > >>>> negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
> > >>>> statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties
> > (usually
> > >>>> mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants
> > -
> > >>>> they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this
> > - you
> > >>>> promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually
> > managed
> > >>>> to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit
> > statements
> > >>>> that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one -
> > super
> > >>>> happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an
> > obligation
> > >>>> on me that I cannot fulfill
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much
> > all
> > >>>> the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that
> > "all
> > >>>> the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO
> > against
> > >>>> the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF.
> > When
> > >>>> you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an
> > individual.
> > >>>> This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this
> > is how
> > >>>> I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
> > >>>> governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
> > >>>> vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even
> > if the
> > >>>> CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
> > >>>> apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
> > >>>> agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
> > >>>> belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF
> > without
> > >>>> explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
> > >>>> definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
> > >>>> contribute some code that was created during that relationship -
> > because
> > >>>> the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I
> > have
> > >>>> not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the
> > contract I
> > >>>> got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
> > >>>> mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has
> > signed with
> > >>>> the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
> > >>>> customer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF
> > combo.
> > >>>> The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company"
> > -
> > >>>> there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the
> > "IP"
> > >>>> part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular"
> > vendor
> > >>>> and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
> > >>>> "deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc,"
> > **could**
> > >>>> agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but
> > that
> > >>>> would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it
> > would not
> > >>>> be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising
> > something you
> > >>>> are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you
> > where it
> > >>>> does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the
> > same
> > >>>> negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
> > >>>> contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc.
> > work, but
> > >>>> it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
> > >>>> provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if
> > the
> > >>>> OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar
> > agreements with
> > >>>> one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might
> > become
> > >>>> easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that
> > it has
> > >>>> "special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and
> > approach of
> > >>>> ASF when it comes to non-profit status.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now - we can see those three approaches I think:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and
> > invoicing but
> > >>>> also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer
> > relationship
> > >>>> - this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it
> > and as
> > >>>> has been said multiple times
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's
> > hard to
> > >>>> say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations
> > with
> > >>>> the customers on the demands and IP
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at
> > least
> > >>>> a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
> > >>>> interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
> > >>>> (fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor
> > relationship
> > >>>> to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to
> > build
> > >>>> a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
> > >>>> things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because
> > there
> > >>>> might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want
> > to
> > >>>> take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks
> > like it
> > >>>> might work.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> J.
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

One small comment.

Just the fact that we are discussing CCLA vs. ICLA is an indication that an
average contributor who wants to enter into a relationship with a corporate
customer w/regards to OSS/Apache related work is at a complete loss.

It means that we BADLY need a legal entity that will handle the legal side
of the relationship.

I've added CCLA only because my lawyers advised me that my Slovakian
company that I use for my invoicing (which I solely own) should have it  -
because I issue invoices by this company.
But I do not expect any of my corporate customers to sign CCLA and put my
name there  if I am an independent contractor working for them, Being an
independent vendor/contractor is very different from being an employee in
this case. That is next to impossible to get CCLA with your name in it when
you are not an employee. Even if you are an employee in a big company you
are not likely to get it. So CCLA is generally out of the discussion here.
ICLA is what matters and recognition of it is (IMHO) something that should
be in a contract with any vendor. That's where I see the role of "OCC +
ASF" which could provide legal framework and support for it - to any
contributor who does not even understand what we are talking about.

 J.

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:52 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On May 11, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > A CCLA isn't sufficient for contributions at Apache, though. An ICLA
> > is always required to be a committer, for example, regardless if every
> > breath you take is copyrighted by your employer. A CCLA can be useful
> > for documenting whether a corporation has explicitly approved various
> > individuals they employ to contribute, but it's more of a comfort
> > thing. If you read the ICLA, you'll see this bit:
> >
> >   You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
> >   license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property
> >   that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent
> >   that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf
> >   of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for
> >   your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has
> >   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
> >
> > The CCLA is optional because the ICLA already requires that you've
> > gotten approval from any owners. The CCLA can formally document this,
> > but it's already implied by the ICLA.
>
> True, but (1) I was a brand new committer and (2) it made it clear that my
> employer could NOT change their mind arbitrarily.
>
> I probably could have argued that the company that acquired my employer,
> my new employer, was bound by the CCLA … the ASF may only require an ICLA,
> but an individual may prefer that a CCLA is filed, That use case and
> language is in the ICLA BTW.
>
> > or that your employer has
> >   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
>
>
> I’m not sure why you’re arguing this? Are CCLAs a burden to the Secretary?
>
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:54 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> When I first signed an ICLA in about 2008 I made sure that I had the
> company I worked for sign a CCLA that named individuals. This was for my
> protection otherwise my ASF work was work for hire.
> >>
> >> Later that company was acquired and my position was senior enough that
> all of my work belonged to them.
> >>
> >>> On May 11, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
> >>> contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
> >>> companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
> >>> more paperwork.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have
> problems
> >>>>> of getting contracts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
> >>>>> After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of
> all of
> >>>>> these died because the customers can't do business with such small
> >>>>> companies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
> >>>> relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively
> easy if
> >>>> you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to
> speak,
> >>>> you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud
> of
> >>>> what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).
> >>>>
> >>>> It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
> >>>> difficulty is.
> >>>>
> >>>> However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do
> business"
> >>>> comes from. My view on this:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have
> to
> >>>> "fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
> >>>>   - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
> >>>>   - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
> >>>> labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
> >>>> companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
> >>>>   - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
> >>>> there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what
> if
> >>>> the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
> >>>>   - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money
> laundering)
> >>>> W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
> >>>>   - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if
> your
> >>>> company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the
> political
> >>>> decisions
> >>>>   - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations
> etc.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can
> provide
> >>>> such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that
> step.
> >>>> Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" -
> if we
> >>>> can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden"
> of
> >>>> verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and
> I
> >>>> think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
> >>>> combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be
> done
> >>>> once to enable all projects basically.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
> >>>> customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if
> they
> >>>> "want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach
> it and
> >>>> it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
> >>>> I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
> >>>> negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
> >>>> customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they
> do
> >>>> and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the
> complexity
> >>>> of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company -
> we
> >>>> are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
> >>>> project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the
> manager
> >>>> of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago
> the
> >>>> joint statement was "we really want to start working together
> basically
> >>>> next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the
> price, we
> >>>> know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
> >>>> needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
> >>>> community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever
> had a
> >>>> contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract
> from
> >>>> the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company
> CCLA) and
> >>>> this is with the lawyers of the company now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because
> (hopefully) we
> >>>> could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
> >>>> Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
> >>>> "service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given
> and
> >>>> even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
> >>>> clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3)
> as our
> >>>> relation is a bit different.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS
> contributors -
> >>>> have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most
> of the
> >>>> vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet
> and we
> >>>> fall into "legalities" and contract signing.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are two kinds of those:
> >>>>
> >>>> * we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be
> fulfilled
> >>>> when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
> >>>> relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will
> have
> >>>> a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable"
> that
> >>>> the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
> >>>> negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
> >>>> statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties
> (usually
> >>>> mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants
> -
> >>>> they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this
> - you
> >>>> promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually
> managed
> >>>> to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit
> statements
> >>>> that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one -
> super
> >>>> happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an
> obligation
> >>>> on me that I cannot fulfill
> >>>>
> >>>> * and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much
> all
> >>>> the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that
> "all
> >>>> the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO
> against
> >>>> the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF.
> When
> >>>> you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an
> individual.
> >>>> This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this
> is how
> >>>> I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
> >>>> governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
> >>>> vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even
> if the
> >>>> CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
> >>>> apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
> >>>> agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
> >>>> belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF
> without
> >>>> explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
> >>>> definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
> >>>> contribute some code that was created during that relationship -
> because
> >>>> the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I
> have
> >>>> not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the
> contract I
> >>>> got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
> >>>> mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has
> signed with
> >>>> the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
> >>>> customer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF
> combo.
> >>>> The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company"
> -
> >>>> there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the
> "IP"
> >>>> part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular"
> vendor
> >>>> and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
> >>>> "deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc,"
> **could**
> >>>> agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but
> that
> >>>> would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it
> would not
> >>>> be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising
> something you
> >>>> are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you
> where it
> >>>> does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the
> same
> >>>> negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
> >>>> contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc.
> work, but
> >>>> it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
> >>>> provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if
> the
> >>>> OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar
> agreements with
> >>>> one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might
> become
> >>>> easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that
> it has
> >>>> "special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and
> approach of
> >>>> ASF when it comes to non-profit status.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now - we can see those three approaches I think:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and
> invoicing but
> >>>> also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer
> relationship
> >>>> - this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it
> and as
> >>>> has been said multiple times
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's
> hard to
> >>>> say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations
> with
> >>>> the customers on the demands and IP
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at
> least
> >>>> a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
> >>>> interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
> >>>> (fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor
> relationship
> >>>> to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to
> build
> >>>> a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
> >>>> things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because
> there
> >>>> might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want
> to
> >>>> take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks
> like it
> >>>> might work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> J.
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>]

> On May 11, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A CCLA isn't sufficient for contributions at Apache, though. An ICLA
> is always required to be a committer, for example, regardless if every
> breath you take is copyrighted by your employer. A CCLA can be useful
> for documenting whether a corporation has explicitly approved various
> individuals they employ to contribute, but it's more of a comfort
> thing. If you read the ICLA, you'll see this bit:
> 
>   You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
>   license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property
>   that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent
>   that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf
>   of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for
>   your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has
>   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
> 
> The CCLA is optional because the ICLA already requires that you've
> gotten approval from any owners. The CCLA can formally document this,
> but it's already implied by the ICLA.

True, but (1) I was a brand new committer and (2) it made it clear that my employer could NOT change their mind arbitrarily.

I probably could have argued that the company that acquired my employer, my new employer, was bound by the CCLA … the ASF may only require an ICLA, but an individual may prefer that a CCLA is filed, That use case and language is in the ICLA BTW.

> or that your employer has
>   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.


I’m not sure why you’re arguing this? Are CCLAs a burden to the Secretary?

> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:54 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> When I first signed an ICLA in about 2008 I made sure that I had the company I worked for sign a CCLA that named individuals. This was for my protection otherwise my ASF work was work for hire.
>> 
>> Later that company was acquired and my position was senior enough that all of my work belonged to them.
>> 
>>> On May 11, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
>>> contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
>>> companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
>>> more paperwork.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have problems
>>>>> of getting contracts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
>>>>> After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of all of
>>>>> these died because the customers can't do business with such small
>>>>> companies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
>>>> relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively easy if
>>>> you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to speak,
>>>> you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud of
>>>> what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).
>>>> 
>>>> It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
>>>> difficulty is.
>>>> 
>>>> However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do business"
>>>> comes from. My view on this:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have to
>>>> "fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
>>>>   - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
>>>>   - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
>>>> labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
>>>> companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
>>>>   - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
>>>> there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what if
>>>> the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
>>>>   - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money laundering)
>>>> W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
>>>>   - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if your
>>>> company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the political
>>>> decisions
>>>>   - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations etc.)
>>>> 
>>>> Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can provide
>>>> such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that step.
>>>> Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" - if we
>>>> can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden" of
>>>> verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and I
>>>> think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
>>>> combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be done
>>>> once to enable all projects basically.
>>>> 
>>>> 2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
>>>> customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if they
>>>> "want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach it and
>>>> it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
>>>> I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
>>>> negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
>>>> customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they do
>>>> and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the complexity
>>>> of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company - we
>>>> are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
>>>> project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the manager
>>>> of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago the
>>>> joint statement was "we really want to start working together basically
>>>> next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the price, we
>>>> know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
>>>> needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
>>>> community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever had a
>>>> contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract from
>>>> the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company CCLA) and
>>>> this is with the lawyers of the company now.
>>>> 
>>>> Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because (hopefully) we
>>>> could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
>>>> Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
>>>> "service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given and
>>>> even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
>>>> clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3) as our
>>>> relation is a bit different.
>>>> 
>>>> 3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS contributors -
>>>> have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most of the
>>>> vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet and we
>>>> fall into "legalities" and contract signing.
>>>> 
>>>> There are two kinds of those:
>>>> 
>>>> * we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be fulfilled
>>>> when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
>>>> relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will have
>>>> a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable" that
>>>> the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
>>>> negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
>>>> statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties (usually
>>>> mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants -
>>>> they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this - you
>>>> promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually managed
>>>> to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit statements
>>>> that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one - super
>>>> happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an obligation
>>>> on me that I cannot fulfill
>>>> 
>>>> * and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much all
>>>> the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that "all
>>>> the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO against
>>>> the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF. When
>>>> you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an individual.
>>>> This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this is how
>>>> I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
>>>> governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
>>>> vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even if the
>>>> CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
>>>> apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
>>>> agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
>>>> belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF without
>>>> explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
>>>> definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
>>>> contribute some code that was created during that relationship - because
>>>> the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I have
>>>> not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the contract I
>>>> got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
>>>> mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has signed with
>>>> the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
>>>> customer.
>>>> 
>>>> Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF combo.
>>>> The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company" -
>>>> there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the "IP"
>>>> part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular" vendor
>>>> and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
>>>> "deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc," **could**
>>>> agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but that
>>>> would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it would not
>>>> be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising something you
>>>> are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you where it
>>>> does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the same
>>>> negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
>>>> contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc. work, but
>>>> it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
>>>> provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if the
>>>> OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar agreements with
>>>> one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might become
>>>> easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that it has
>>>> "special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and approach of
>>>> ASF when it comes to non-profit status.
>>>> 
>>>> Now - we can see those three approaches I think:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and invoicing but
>>>> also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer relationship
>>>> - this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it and as
>>>> has been said multiple times
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's hard to
>>>> say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations with
>>>> the customers on the demands and IP
>>>> 
>>>> 3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at least
>>>> a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
>>>> interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
>>>> (fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor relationship
>>>> to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to build
>>>> a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
>>>> things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because there
>>>> might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want to
>>>> take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks like it
>>>> might work.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> J.
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

A CCLA isn't sufficient for contributions at Apache, though. An ICLA
is always required to be a committer, for example, regardless if every
breath you take is copyrighted by your employer. A CCLA can be useful
for documenting whether a corporation has explicitly approved various
individuals they employ to contribute, but it's more of a comfort
thing. If you read the ICLA, you'll see this bit:

   You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
   license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property
   that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent
   that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf
   of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for
   your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has
   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.

The CCLA is optional because the ICLA already requires that you've
gotten approval from any owners. The CCLA can formally document this,
but it's already implied by the ICLA.

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:54 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> When I first signed an ICLA in about 2008 I made sure that I had the company I worked for sign a CCLA that named individuals. This was for my protection otherwise my ASF work was work for hire.
>
> Later that company was acquired and my position was senior enough that all of my work belonged to them.
>
> > On May 11, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
> > contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
> > companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
> > more paperwork.
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have problems
> >>> of getting contracts.
> >>>
> >>> I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
> >>> After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of all of
> >>> these died because the customers can't do business with such small
> >>> companies.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
> >> relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively easy if
> >> you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to speak,
> >> you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud of
> >> what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).
> >>
> >> It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
> >> difficulty is.
> >>
> >> However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do business"
> >> comes from. My view on this:
> >>
> >> 1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have to
> >> "fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
> >>    - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
> >>    - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
> >> labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
> >> companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
> >>    - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
> >> there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what if
> >> the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
> >>    - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money laundering)
> >> W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
> >>    - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if your
> >> company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the political
> >> decisions
> >>    - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations etc.)
> >>
> >> Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can provide
> >> such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that step.
> >> Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" - if we
> >> can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden" of
> >> verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and I
> >> think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
> >> combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be done
> >> once to enable all projects basically.
> >>
> >> 2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
> >> customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if they
> >> "want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach it and
> >> it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
> >> I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
> >> negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
> >> customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they do
> >> and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the complexity
> >> of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company - we
> >> are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
> >> project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the manager
> >> of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago the
> >> joint statement was "we really want to start working together basically
> >> next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the price, we
> >> know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
> >> needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
> >> community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever had a
> >> contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract from
> >> the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company CCLA) and
> >> this is with the lawyers of the company now.
> >>
> >> Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because (hopefully) we
> >> could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
> >> Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
> >> "service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given and
> >> even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
> >> clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3) as our
> >> relation is a bit different.
> >>
> >> 3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS contributors -
> >> have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most of the
> >> vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet and we
> >> fall into "legalities" and contract signing.
> >>
> >> There are two kinds of those:
> >>
> >> * we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be fulfilled
> >> when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
> >> relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will have
> >> a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable" that
> >> the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
> >> negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
> >> statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties (usually
> >> mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants -
> >> they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this - you
> >> promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually managed
> >> to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit statements
> >> that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one - super
> >> happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an obligation
> >> on me that I cannot fulfill
> >>
> >> * and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much all
> >> the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that "all
> >> the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO against
> >> the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF. When
> >> you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an individual.
> >> This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this is how
> >> I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
> >> governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
> >> vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even if the
> >> CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
> >> apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
> >> agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
> >> belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF without
> >> explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
> >> definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
> >> contribute some code that was created during that relationship - because
> >> the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I have
> >> not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the contract I
> >> got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
> >> mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has signed with
> >> the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
> >> customer.
> >>
> >> Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF combo.
> >> The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company" -
> >> there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the "IP"
> >> part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular" vendor
> >> and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
> >> "deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc," **could**
> >> agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but that
> >> would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it would not
> >> be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising something you
> >> are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you where it
> >> does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the same
> >> negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
> >> contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc. work, but
> >> it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
> >> provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if the
> >> OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar agreements with
> >> one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might become
> >> easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that it has
> >> "special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and approach of
> >> ASF when it comes to non-profit status.
> >>
> >> Now - we can see those three approaches I think:
> >>
> >> 1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and invoicing but
> >> also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer relationship
> >> - this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it and as
> >> has been said multiple times
> >>
> >> 2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's hard to
> >> say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations with
> >> the customers on the demands and IP
> >>
> >> 3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at least
> >> a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
> >> interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
> >> (fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor relationship
> >> to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to build
> >> a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.
> >>
> >> Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
> >> things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because there
> >> might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want to
> >> take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks like it
> >> might work.
> >>
> >>
> >> J.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>]

When I first signed an ICLA in about 2008 I made sure that I had the company I worked for sign a CCLA that named individuals. This was for my protection otherwise my ASF work was work for hire.

Later that company was acquired and my position was senior enough that all of my work belonged to them.

> On May 11, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
> contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
> companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
> more paperwork.
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have problems
>>> of getting contracts.
>>> 
>>> I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
>>> After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of all of
>>> these died because the customers can't do business with such small
>>> companies.
>>> 
>>> 
>> This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
>> relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively easy if
>> you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to speak,
>> you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud of
>> what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).
>> 
>> It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
>> difficulty is.
>> 
>> However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do business"
>> comes from. My view on this:
>> 
>> 1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have to
>> "fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
>>    - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
>>    - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
>> labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
>> companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
>>    - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
>> there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what if
>> the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
>>    - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money laundering)
>> W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
>>    - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if your
>> company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the political
>> decisions
>>    - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations etc.)
>> 
>> Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can provide
>> such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that step.
>> Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" - if we
>> can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden" of
>> verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and I
>> think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
>> combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be done
>> once to enable all projects basically.
>> 
>> 2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
>> customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if they
>> "want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach it and
>> it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
>> I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
>> negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
>> customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they do
>> and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the complexity
>> of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company - we
>> are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
>> project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the manager
>> of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago the
>> joint statement was "we really want to start working together basically
>> next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the price, we
>> know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
>> needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
>> community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever had a
>> contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract from
>> the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company CCLA) and
>> this is with the lawyers of the company now.
>> 
>> Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because (hopefully) we
>> could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
>> Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
>> "service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given and
>> even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
>> clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3) as our
>> relation is a bit different.
>> 
>> 3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS contributors -
>> have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most of the
>> vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet and we
>> fall into "legalities" and contract signing.
>> 
>> There are two kinds of those:
>> 
>> * we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be fulfilled
>> when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
>> relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will have
>> a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable" that
>> the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
>> negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
>> statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties (usually
>> mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants -
>> they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this - you
>> promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually managed
>> to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit statements
>> that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one - super
>> happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an obligation
>> on me that I cannot fulfill
>> 
>> * and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much all
>> the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that "all
>> the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO against
>> the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF. When
>> you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an individual.
>> This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this is how
>> I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
>> governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
>> vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even if the
>> CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
>> apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
>> agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
>> belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF without
>> explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
>> definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
>> contribute some code that was created during that relationship - because
>> the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I have
>> not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the contract I
>> got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
>> mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has signed with
>> the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
>> customer.
>> 
>> Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF combo.
>> The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company" -
>> there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the "IP"
>> part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular" vendor
>> and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
>> "deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc," **could**
>> agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but that
>> would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it would not
>> be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising something you
>> are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you where it
>> does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the same
>> negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
>> contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc. work, but
>> it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
>> provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if the
>> OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar agreements with
>> one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might become
>> easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that it has
>> "special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and approach of
>> ASF when it comes to non-profit status.
>> 
>> Now - we can see those three approaches I think:
>> 
>> 1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and invoicing but
>> also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer relationship
>> - this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it and as
>> has been said multiple times
>> 
>> 2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's hard to
>> say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations with
>> the customers on the demands and IP
>> 
>> 3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at least
>> a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
>> interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
>> (fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor relationship
>> to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to build
>> a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.
>> 
>> Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
>> things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because there
>> might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want to
>> take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks like it
>> might work.
>> 
>> 
>> J.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On 11 May 2022, at 19:37, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
> contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
> companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
> more paperwork.

Or, lets not forget, those who operate in a legal setting/country where such an iCLA cannot readily be entered into by an employee for code that pertains to their work - and so that a CCLA is more appropriate (to protect that employee and the ASF).

Dw.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

Small point of clarification: only the ICLA matters at Apache since
contributions are made by individuals. The CCLA is provided for
companies so perplexed by this concept that they feel the need for
more paperwork.

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have problems
> > of getting contracts.
> >
> > I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
> > After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of all of
> > these died because the customers can't do business with such small
> > companies.
> >
> >
> This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
> relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively easy if
> you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to speak,
> you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud of
> what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).
>
> It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
> difficulty is.
>
> However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do business"
> comes from. My view on this:
>
> 1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have to
> "fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
>     - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
>     - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
> labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
> companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
>     - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
> there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what if
> the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
>     - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money laundering)
> W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
>     - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if your
> company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the political
> decisions
>     - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations etc.)
>
> Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can provide
> such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that step.
> Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" - if we
> can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden" of
> verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and I
> think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
> combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be done
> once to enable all projects basically.
>
> 2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
> customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if they
> "want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach it and
> it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
> I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
> negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
> customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they do
> and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the complexity
> of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company - we
> are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
> project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the manager
> of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago the
> joint statement was "we really want to start working together basically
> next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the price, we
> know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
> needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
> community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever had a
> contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract from
> the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company CCLA) and
> this is with the lawyers of the company now.
>
> Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because (hopefully) we
> could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
> Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
> "service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given and
> even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
> clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3) as our
> relation is a bit different.
>
> 3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS contributors -
> have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most of the
> vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet and we
> fall into "legalities" and contract signing.
>
> There are two kinds of those:
>
> * we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be fulfilled
> when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
> relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will have
> a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable" that
> the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
> negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
> statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties (usually
> mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants -
> they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this - you
> promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually managed
> to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit statements
> that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one - super
> happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an obligation
> on me that I cannot fulfill
>
> * and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much all
> the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that "all
> the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO against
> the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF. When
> you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an individual.
> This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this is how
> I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
> governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
> vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even if the
> CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
> apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
> agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
> belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF without
> explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
> definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
> contribute some code that was created during that relationship - because
> the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I have
> not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the contract I
> got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
> mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has signed with
> the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
> customer.
>
> Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF combo.
> The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company" -
> there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the "IP"
> part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular" vendor
> and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
> "deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc," **could**
> agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but that
> would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it would not
> be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising something you
> are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you where it
> does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the same
> negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
> contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc. work, but
> it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
> provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if the
> OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar agreements with
> one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might become
> easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that it has
> "special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and approach of
> ASF when it comes to non-profit status.
>
> Now - we can see those three approaches I think:
>
> 1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and invoicing but
> also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer relationship
> - this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it and as
> has been said multiple times
>
> 2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's hard to
> say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations with
> the customers on the demands and IP
>
> 3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at least
> a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
> interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
> (fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor relationship
> to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to build
> a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.
>
> Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
> things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because there
> might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want to
> take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks like it
> might work.
>
>
> J.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

>
>
> I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have problems
> of getting contracts.
>
> I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference.
> After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of all of
> these died because the customers can't do business with such small
> companies.
>
>
This is also my assessment of where  the problem is. I think building
relationships and finding customers in an OSS world is relatively easy if
you are transparent, honest, do your job well and you are open to speak,
you make sure you stand out of the crowd and you are generally proud of
what you do (yes Chris - those all things are about you too :D).

It's turning them into a regular invoice paid every month is where the
difficulty is.

However I think we need to really understand where the "can't do business"
comes from. My view on this:

1) The businesses have established procurement processes and you have to
"fit" - in most cases there are a number of conditions:
    - you have to "be on the list" of the approved vendors
    - in many you have to sign certain agreements that you do not "child
labour", "bribery" etc. and similar thing (basically because public
companies have to report that their vendors are "ok" to the auditors
    - in many cases the business have to have someone to "sue" in case
there is a damage or have some other indemnification in place - (what if
the vendor does harm to our customers and we get sued)
    - there is also a check who is the beneficiary owner (money laundering)
W1-BEN forms in US when you have "individuals"
    - also - and this is more important recently - there is a check if your
company does not fall into any of the sanctions imposed by the political
decisions
    - there are a number of legal requirements (TAX Id registrations etc.)

Having an entity that is "known" to the customer and "big" and can provide
such guarantees is crucial otherwise it's a big effort to pass that step.
Here Both "Support Inc." and "Open Collective + ASF as fiscal host" - if we
can think about the two models, would likely work well. The "burden" of
verifying those is shifted to OpenCollective and ASF joint effort and I
think it should be feasible to put both OC and ASF as "accepted vendor
combo" for most big players. And for each player it would have to be done
once to enable all projects basically.

2) We also have to remember that people who we contact as potential
customers often are not familiar with those processes - and even if they
"want" to work with you - this might be the first time they approach it and
it can take them MONTHS to get it sorted out.
I can - again - give a very good example. I mentioned "contract"
negotiations before - and it  is an interesting one. The prospective
customer people really wants to work with me. I really love what they do
and I have great contact there who is willing to take on all the complexity
of managing the OSS <> Company relations between me and the company - we
are also friends and worked together on a number of initiatives in the
project (successfully) and we both want to work together. And the manager
of my friend and his manager are fully supportive. And ~ 2 months ago the
joint statement was "we really want to start working together basically
next week". We still have no contract signed today. We know the price, we
know how much time I will focus on with the customer, we know what the
needs of the customer are. We know big parts of it will end up as good
community contributions. EVERYTHING is in place. But they never ever had a
contract with someone like me. I have a requirement that the contract from
the customer is explicit about my ICLA (and my self-owned company CCLA) and
this is with the lawyers of the company now.

Here - this is something that 1) will make easier - because (hopefully) we
could work out a template contract and having bigger entity (whether
Support Inc or OC + ASF Combo) we could probably have some established
"service" with all the documents prepared, and all the answers given and
even some guidance to our "partners" at the corporates on how they can
clear their processes faster. But there is one caveat (see point 3) as our
relation is a bit different.

3) The 2) might take much longer  mostly because we - OSS contributors -
have a different type of relationship than regular vendors. For most of the
vendors, big businesses have some expectations that we cannot meet and we
fall into "legalities" and contract signing.

There are two kinds of those:

* we cannot guarantee that whatever the customer wants will be fulfilled
when we contribute to ASF projects. Most big players look at such a
relation from "I pay - I demand" and most of the internal audits will have
a hard time on accepting a contract where there is no "deliverable" that
the company can "demand to complete". I found this extremely hard to
negotiate in the past. Usually it ends up with some kind of "blurry"
statement which can be interpreted differently and both parties (usually
mostly vendors) have to accept the risk that if the other party wants -
they can "exercise" some statements "But you have not delivered this - you
promised it in contract". Bue t over the last few years I actually managed
to convince some of the parties I work with to put some explicit statements
that "the work is subject to community rules ..."  and I am for one - super
happy with the contracts I have now - because it does not put an obligation
on me that I cannot fulfill

* and there is the bigger problem about IP. Basically for pretty much all
the customer <-> vendor relationships almost by default you have that "all
the IP produced during the relation belongs to us". Which is - IMHO against
the Apache Way and against the ICLA and CCLA  that we have with ASF. When
you develop a code in the ASF you contribute it to ASF as an individual.
This is a bit blurry in the current approach because (at least this is how
I understand it) ICLA governs my individual contributions, while CCLA
governs contributions of your employees. But when you have a 3d-party
vendor (And I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong about this) - even if the
CCLA is signed with the ASF by the customer, it does not automatically
apply to a vendor <> customer relationship. So if I sign a standard
agreement that customer "usually" signs with the vendor - all the IP
belongs to the customer - and I cannot legally contribute it to ASF without
explicit permission for every contribution by the customer. Which is
definitely wrong and puts me under a huge legal risk if I actually
contribute some code that was created during that relationship - because
the customer might claim I should not do it. This is actually why I have
not signed the contract with the new customer yet - because the contract I
got from them (as opposed to my proposal) did not contain explicit
mentioning of the ICLA/CCLA I personally and my own company has signed with
the ASF and that the code contributed this way does not belong to the
customer.

Here I think "Support Inc." is at disadvantage over the OCC + ASF combo.
The problem is, that if "Support Inc." will be "just another company" -
there will be no way it could negotiate either the "demand" or the "IP"
part with the big customers IMHO. They will treat it as a "regular" vendor
and will expect it to provide the usual "all code belongs to us" and
"deliverables you have to fulfill". Surely the "Support Inc," **could**
agree to that and have different agreement with the contributors, but that
would be an enormous business/legal risk to take that on (and it would not
be transparent and well, even possibly dishonest - promising something you
are not able to promise and claiming that the code belongs to you where it
does not). But with the OCC + ASF combo, there is a chance that the same
negotiations I did with my customers and the same "explicitness" in
contract might be agreed to. That needs some legal/contract etc. work, but
it has a chance to scale well - because unlike "projects scope" those
provisions would be identical for all projects participating. And if the
OCC + ASF combo would also become "known" and signs similar agreements with
one or two big players, transferring it to the next players might become
easier and make a "snowball" effect. The nice thing about it is that it has
"special" status - without - I think breaching the bylaws and approach of
ASF when it comes to non-profit status.

Now - we can see those three approaches I think:

1) ASF does all the work, establish the payment structure and invoicing but
also starts being the intermediary of the project <> customer relationship
- this is not possible due to non-profit status of ASF as I see it and as
has been said multiple times

2) Support Inc. is established - but it can't be endorsed and it's hard to
say how it can have "special" status that would make the negotiations with
the customers on the demands and IP

3) OCC (or other similar) + ASF as "fiscal host" combo - this has at least
a chance (subject to legal review and by-laws and likely some
interpretations) of providing the right legal + accounting framework
(fiscal host) while out-sourcing the customer <> contributor relationship
to OCC but keeping the "reputation" and "special status" allowing to build
a scalable and repeatable framework for multiple projects to tap in.

Of course - maybe it's just "legal optimization" and trying to shuffle
things around, and maybe it does not have a "legal ground" - because there
might be some "implicit responsibilities" that the ASF might not want to
take in such a combo. But at least from the first glance it looks like it
might work.


J.

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Hi all,

I guess my point about this is, that small startups usually have problems of getting contracts.

I can't count the occasions, where I generated leads at a conference. After the conference, when we were discussing moving forward, 95% of all of these died because the customers can't do business with such small companies.

I'm going to give up my business, because I managed to get so few contacts, mainly because of this, that I have to fear the German Finnanzamt (tax department) will close my business for me.

For me it's about getting rid of the annoying part (contracts and payment) and profiting from the marketing effect of appearing to be the "official" place to get support and last not least, to profit from not being a tiny company, which it's not worth doing business with.


Chris

Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 12:32:09 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

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 <bo...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> > >> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> > >>>>>>>> <roman@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
> > >>>>>>>>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>]

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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> > > >> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> > > >>>>>>>> <roman@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
> > > >>>>>>>>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

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 <bo...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> > >> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> > >>>>>>>> <roman@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
> > >>>>>>>>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

> 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 <bo...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> >> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> >>>>>>>> <roman@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
> >>>>>>>>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

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 <ch...@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 <bo...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
>> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
>>>>>>>> <roman@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
>>>>>>>>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

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 <ch...@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 <bo...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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.dutz@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> > > >> >> <roman@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
> > > >> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

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 <bo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:35:06 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@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 <ch...@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> > >> >> <roman@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
> > >> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

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 <ch...@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> > >> >> <roman@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
> > >> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

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 <ch...@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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> >> >> <roman@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
> >> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >
>

RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

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 <bo...@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.dutz@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 
>> >> <roman@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 
>> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

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 <bo...@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.dutz@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 <roman@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
>> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

> 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 <bo...@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.dutz@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
> >>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

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 <ch...@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
>>> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

> 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 <ch...@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
> > <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>

RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

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
> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

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
> <ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

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
<ch...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>]

> On Apr 20, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:32 PM Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]. Actually, such a company would basically only need the blessing of the ASF and [snip]
> 
> Honest question: why?
> 
> Since the beginning of the ASF, there have been companies which
> provide commercial support for one or more of our products.  None of
> them have had any sort of blessing or exclusive rights.  The ASF
> doesn't care how they are structured or if they are for profit or
> non-profit.
> 
> We don't merely tolerate such organizations --as long as they don't
> make assertions about owning the products or having any sorts of
> exclusive rights, we welcome and celebrate them.  One such company was
> Covalent, and understanding what worked well and what didn't work so
> well might be helpful here.  I've added a few links at the bottom of
> this email.  By the way, the headline on the first link is something
> that would be considered very problematic - specifically the word
> "THE".

Exactly. This is an ongoing issue for some Vendors.
> 
> If there is a need for a blessing, the reasoning behind such a need
> will have to be explicitly enumerated.  As a practical matter, it is
> difficult to come to consensus with the membership, this doesn't feel
> like an operational matter which would fall under the purview of the
> president, so ultimately it is likely that it would have to be the
> board that provides any blessing.

We could encourage Support Co to review branding and press requirements to make sure they don’t cross the line into misrepresentation of their relationship with the ASF and any particular project.

> 
> Speaking as a board member: I'd like to encourage the idea of one (or
> more!) support organizations, but would like to push back on the idea
> that such organization(s) need any sort of blessing.  If I'm wrong,
> please convince me otherwise.

Agree. The only “blessing” would be if a concrete case is egregious. This is an ongoing task of PMCs, Press, and Brand.

> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> https://www.cmswire.com/cms/open-source-cms/covalent-is-the-apache-support-group-001328.php
> http://www.lannigan.org/Covalent_History_Covalent_Technologies.htm
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Hi all,

I agree that the ASF doesn't have to allow such a Support Inc. thing. However, if it officially supported it or even stated that it's fine with the way it operates that could be a benefit for Support Inc. being accepted.

Of course, would this be a company with paid staff, therefore people doing business through it, definitely will have to pay a certain low percentage or a fixed amount for contracts going through it. I'd even suggest that excess earnings could flow back to the ASF as donations.

Also, would I think the core purpose of this Support Inc should be to help provide a sustainable income for individuals or small businesses that work in Open-Source and not to become the next unicorn, that brings millions of dollars to its shareholders pockets. I bet a company known for operating this way would have a plus on the marketing side. I at least would rather hire a company that I know the money flows back into the people behind the projects than into the pockets of shareholders.

Initially I even thought this might be something we could use part of that 500k$ donation for, which should be targeted at creating an endowment. I know we're currently struggling with this a bit, but I have no idea if the ASF would be allowed to do such a move. So perhaps a Support Endowment might be an option?

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> 
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. April 2022 21:31
To: Apache Community Dev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:32 PM Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]. Actually, such a company would basically only need the 
> blessing of the ASF and [snip]

Honest question: why?

Since the beginning of the ASF, there have been companies which provide commercial support for one or more of our products.  None of them have had any sort of blessing or exclusive rights.  The ASF doesn't care how they are structured or if they are for profit or non-profit.

We don't merely tolerate such organizations --as long as they don't make assertions about owning the products or having any sorts of exclusive rights, we welcome and celebrate them.  One such company was Covalent, and understanding what worked well and what didn't work so well might be helpful here.  I've added a few links at the bottom of this email.  By the way, the headline on the first link is something that would be considered very problematic - specifically the word "THE".

If there is a need for a blessing, the reasoning behind such a need will have to be explicitly enumerated.  As a practical matter, it is difficult to come to consensus with the membership, this doesn't feel like an operational matter which would fall under the purview of the president, so ultimately it is likely that it would have to be the board that provides any blessing.

Speaking as a board member: I'd like to encourage the idea of one (or
more!) support organizations, but would like to push back on the idea that such organization(s) need any sort of blessing.  If I'm wrong, please convince me otherwise.

- Sam Ruby

https://www.cmswire.com/cms/open-source-cms/covalent-is-the-apache-support-group-001328.php
http://www.lannigan.org/Covalent_History_Covalent_Technologies.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:32 PM Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]. Actually, such a company would basically only need the blessing of the ASF and [snip]

Honest question: why?

Since the beginning of the ASF, there have been companies which
provide commercial support for one or more of our products.  None of
them have had any sort of blessing or exclusive rights.  The ASF
doesn't care how they are structured or if they are for profit or
non-profit.

We don't merely tolerate such organizations --as long as they don't
make assertions about owning the products or having any sorts of
exclusive rights, we welcome and celebrate them.  One such company was
Covalent, and understanding what worked well and what didn't work so
well might be helpful here.  I've added a few links at the bottom of
this email.  By the way, the headline on the first link is something
that would be considered very problematic - specifically the word
"THE".

If there is a need for a blessing, the reasoning behind such a need
will have to be explicitly enumerated.  As a practical matter, it is
difficult to come to consensus with the membership, this doesn't feel
like an operational matter which would fall under the purview of the
president, so ultimately it is likely that it would have to be the
board that provides any blessing.

Speaking as a board member: I'd like to encourage the idea of one (or
more!) support organizations, but would like to push back on the idea
that such organization(s) need any sort of blessing.  If I'm wrong,
please convince me otherwise.

- Sam Ruby

https://www.cmswire.com/cms/open-source-cms/covalent-is-the-apache-support-group-001328.php
http://www.lannigan.org/Covalent_History_Covalent_Technologies.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>]

Hello,

I like your idea very much. A "Support inc"  can help in different cases. It could even act as some kind of conflict resolution as well, which is definitely something one needs to think of. Also collecting payments and paying out can be a pain.

Support Inc is not only limited to providing support for specific issues, but can also help with providing trainings, paid talks etc. pp.

I like the idea that this company is not profit oriented. Still it will have expenses, like book keeping, postal services, etc pp. Also, people who help with conflict resolution, sign contracts, do marketing etc will also need to be paid. I would expect that some percentage of a gig will need to flow back into the organisation, to cover its expenses and also have some reserve. In the end, I would expect that a few people will work professionally for this org.

There is many interesting forms for such an organisation. Actually, such a company would basically only need the blessing of the ASF and a few willing people to found and fund it. 

Kind regards,
Christian

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, at 18:56, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> well in general the only reason I added the Board oversight into my 
> sketch was because I've seen with other companies (Like Tidelift) that 
> this is the main problem when it comes to working together with the ASF 
> Projects. So I thought: If the board is added as an oversight, then we 
> can ensure that the companies goals don't cannibalize the ASF's goals.
>
> I'm definitely not insisting on this ... I would just hate to see yet 
> another commercial entity that is not in line with the ASF emerge.
>
> Also, would I like to lay emphasis on the part of everyone being able 
> to be registered. Of course, can't we provide 24/7 instant support for 
> all projects, the Support Inc. would more act as a proxy between 
> individuals (Or even groups of individuals).
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: giovanni@paclan.it <gi...@paclan.it> 
> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. April 2022 16:45
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
>
> I like the idea a lot and, actually, I thought about something similar 
> (more similar to Jarek's interpretation) more then once but I always 
> stopped by thinking "who should be crazy enough to support this ?".
> Probably now times are mature enough to start something.
>  Giovanni 
>
> On 4/20/22 16:07, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>> I like the idea, not silly at all, but I think it has one caveat.
>> 
>> Contrary to what you wrote about the ASF values, I think (that's my 
>> first thought at least) that if it happens it should be an individual 
>> initiative of some members. And IMHO there should be no formal 
>> board/ASF affiliation IMHO because then it is - at least that's my gut 
>> feeling - quite contrary to the values and the ASF legal status.
>> 
>> As I see it - people representing the Support Inc. company (even if 
>> they are from ASF) should not really be "ASF representatives" because 
>> if they do, this puts some responsibilities and guarantees on both 
>> sides (and especially on the ASF). There are certain guarantees that 
>> come with more or less formal association with the ASF brand and I 
>> think if the board overlooks the "Support Inc." - by definition it has 
>> some guarantees (and I do not know for sure but that would likely not 
>> be legal when it comes to the ASF status). But that would not (I
>> think) preclude that some of the founders are board members. As long 
>> as there is a good care about conflict of interests separation, the 
>> multiple-hat idea is quite easy to apply here.
>> 
>> That would likely make Support Inc. less "attractive" - especially for 
>> the potential customers (precisely because of the lack of those 
>> guarantees by the ASF). But on the other hand, if this company is run 
>> and started by people who are "well established" in the OSS community 
>> the attractiveness of such a Support Inc. company is already high. If 
>> anything, by the network of individual relations of those people who 
>> start it. In a way this would be similar approach as Tidelift (some of 
>> the people there are with the OSS background), but it could be 
>> structured differently (with different incentivization for both 
>> customers and contributors, focusing more on individual relationships 
>> of people who would start it rather than on "brand/company", different 
>> marketing and promotion ideas - so it could be better suited for the 
>> ASF projects. And it could become part of the "ecosystem" around the 
>> ASF (which the ASF could actually list on the page among others like 
>> Tiidelfit without endorsement or guarantees). So it might be a YABD 
>> (Yet Another But Different) Tidelift-like company.
>> 
>> This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities - 
>> there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project 
>> and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their 
>> stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if 
>> some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
>> I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see 
>> if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good 
>> support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply 
>> have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
>> 
>> I am not sure if such an approach is contrary to the idea of yours 
>> Chris, or whether this is something that you also considered or 
>> whether "non-official-affiliation" is a "killer" in your idea (I hope 
>> not :). And I am not 100% sure if my "non-affiliation" is that 
>> important. I think it is, but I would love to hear what others and You 
>> have to say there.
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:11 PM Christofer Dutz 
>> <ch...@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.
>>>
>>> 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 and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that). 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.
>>>
>>> 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).
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> 
>
>
> Attachments:
> * openpgp-digital-signature.asc

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Hi all,

well in general the only reason I added the Board oversight into my sketch was because I've seen with other companies (Like Tidelift) that this is the main problem when it comes to working together with the ASF Projects. So I thought: If the board is added as an oversight, then we can ensure that the companies goals don't cannibalize the ASF's goals.

I'm definitely not insisting on this ... I would just hate to see yet another commercial entity that is not in line with the ASF emerge.

Also, would I like to lay emphasis on the part of everyone being able to be registered. Of course, can't we provide 24/7 instant support for all projects, the Support Inc. would more act as a proxy between individuals (Or even groups of individuals).

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: giovanni@paclan.it <gi...@paclan.it> 
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. April 2022 16:45
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

I like the idea a lot and, actually, I thought about something similar (more similar to Jarek's interpretation) more then once but I always stopped by thinking "who should be crazy enough to support this ?".
Probably now times are mature enough to start something.
 Giovanni 

On 4/20/22 16:07, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I like the idea, not silly at all, but I think it has one caveat.
> 
> Contrary to what you wrote about the ASF values, I think (that's my 
> first thought at least) that if it happens it should be an individual 
> initiative of some members. And IMHO there should be no formal 
> board/ASF affiliation IMHO because then it is - at least that's my gut 
> feeling - quite contrary to the values and the ASF legal status.
> 
> As I see it - people representing the Support Inc. company (even if 
> they are from ASF) should not really be "ASF representatives" because 
> if they do, this puts some responsibilities and guarantees on both 
> sides (and especially on the ASF). There are certain guarantees that 
> come with more or less formal association with the ASF brand and I 
> think if the board overlooks the "Support Inc." - by definition it has 
> some guarantees (and I do not know for sure but that would likely not 
> be legal when it comes to the ASF status). But that would not (I
> think) preclude that some of the founders are board members. As long 
> as there is a good care about conflict of interests separation, the 
> multiple-hat idea is quite easy to apply here.
> 
> That would likely make Support Inc. less "attractive" - especially for 
> the potential customers (precisely because of the lack of those 
> guarantees by the ASF). But on the other hand, if this company is run 
> and started by people who are "well established" in the OSS community 
> the attractiveness of such a Support Inc. company is already high. If 
> anything, by the network of individual relations of those people who 
> start it. In a way this would be similar approach as Tidelift (some of 
> the people there are with the OSS background), but it could be 
> structured differently (with different incentivization for both 
> customers and contributors, focusing more on individual relationships 
> of people who would start it rather than on "brand/company", different 
> marketing and promotion ideas - so it could be better suited for the 
> ASF projects. And it could become part of the "ecosystem" around the 
> ASF (which the ASF could actually list on the page among others like 
> Tiidelfit without endorsement or guarantees). So it might be a YABD 
> (Yet Another But Different) Tidelift-like company.
> 
> This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities - 
> there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project 
> and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their 
> stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if 
> some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see 
> if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good 
> support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply 
> have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
> 
> I am not sure if such an approach is contrary to the idea of yours 
> Chris, or whether this is something that you also considered or 
> whether "non-official-affiliation" is a "killer" in your idea (I hope 
> not :). And I am not 100% sure if my "non-affiliation" is that 
> important. I think it is, but I would love to hear what others and You 
> have to say there.
> 
> J.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:11 PM Christofer Dutz 
> <ch...@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.
>>
>> 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 and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that). 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.
>>
>> 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).
>> 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.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[gi...@paclan.it]

I like the idea a lot and, actually, I thought about something similar (more similar to Jarek's interpretation)
more then once but I always stopped by thinking "who should be crazy enough to support this ?".
Probably now times are mature enough to start something.
 Giovanni 

On 4/20/22 16:07, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I like the idea, not silly at all, but I think it has one caveat.
> 
> Contrary to what you wrote about the ASF values, I think (that's my
> first thought at least) that if it happens it should be an individual
> initiative of some members. And IMHO there should be no formal
> board/ASF affiliation IMHO because then it is - at least that's my gut
> feeling - quite contrary to the values and the ASF legal status.
> 
> As I see it - people representing the Support Inc. company (even if
> they are from ASF) should not really be "ASF representatives" because
> if they do, this puts some responsibilities and guarantees on both
> sides (and especially on the ASF). There are certain guarantees that
> come with more or less formal association with the ASF brand and I
> think if the board overlooks the "Support Inc." - by definition it has
> some guarantees (and I do not know for sure but that would likely not
> be legal when it comes to the ASF status). But that would not (I
> think) preclude that some of the founders are board members. As long
> as there is a good care about conflict of interests separation, the
> multiple-hat idea is quite easy to apply here.
> 
> That would likely make Support Inc. less "attractive" - especially for
> the potential customers (precisely because of the lack of those
> guarantees by the ASF). But on the other hand, if this company is run
> and started by people who are "well established" in the OSS community
> the attractiveness of such a Support Inc. company is already high. If
> anything, by the network of individual relations of those people who
> start it. In a way this would be similar approach as Tidelift (some of
> the people there are with the OSS background), but it could be
> structured differently (with different incentivization for both
> customers and contributors, focusing more on individual relationships
> of people who would start it rather than on "brand/company", different
> marketing and promotion ideas - so it could be better suited for the
> ASF projects. And it could become part of the "ecosystem" around the
> ASF (which the ASF could actually list on the page among others like
> Tiidelfit without endorsement or guarantees). So it might be a YABD
> (Yet Another But Different) Tidelift-like company.
> 
> This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities -
> there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project
> and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their
> stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if
> some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see
> if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good
> support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply
> have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
> 
> I am not sure if such an approach is contrary to the idea of yours
> Chris, or whether this is something that you also considered or
> whether "non-official-affiliation" is a "killer" in your idea (I hope
> not :). And I am not 100% sure if my "non-affiliation" is that
> important. I think it is, but I would love to hear what others and You
> have to say there.
> 
> J.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:11 PM Christofer Dutz
> <ch...@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.
>>
>> 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 and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that). 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.
>>
>> 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).
>> 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.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> 

RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

And I think when adding the two fields, we could eliminate question Q5 and Q6.

I saw you extended the table to the bottom to allow me so select something in both columns ;-) 

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> 
Sent: Mittwoch, 27. April 2022 10:34
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

Hi All,

I think I commented in the document ... I think two numeric fields: How many hours per week to you work on open-source "paid" and "unpaid" would allow not only the type of evaluation regardings the gender distribution, but also would allow non-dei related analysis.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Katia Rojas <ka...@apache.org>
Sent: Dienstag, 26. April 2022 20:09
To: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
Cc: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

Hello Jarek,

Those are very good questions.
Based on those questions we are assessing the following topics:

1.  Which percentage of the Paid/Unpaid belongs to each gender? It could be interesting and potentially actionable if we see a ratio mismatch between paid / unpaid.

2. How would this information help with contributor experience improvement?

3. Could we summarise the questions in one or two questions, open or closed?

We are following up on those topics in the slack channel and the google docs as well.

Thanks,
Katia


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:13 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I think we have a great opportunity to get much more insight on what 
> is really needed here.
>
> Katia and the Diversity team are running the 2022 Survey about the 
> contributor's and there was already a question about whether people 
> are being paid/ not paid / mixed.
>
> I think - since this is an important topic - we should gather a bit 
> more stats on what the contributor source of paid work is and what are 
> the biggest obstacles they face in case they want to be paid. I have a 
> feeling that all of us are looking at that from their personal 
> experience and perspectives, but this might vary wildly and the survey 
> seems to be a perfect opportunity to find out more.
>
> The announcement is here and Katia asked for comments till 29th of 
> April - so we have still 3 days:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8r0gmw5f10r16drwc5wnyvgvppq3cbcw
>
> I already added a comment describing my ideas for the survey
> questions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s0TVBFf-KvOTl3IejI2FFOOTdkugZlX_pt
> nN6YWMFN0/edit?disco=AAAAYgvywxI
>
> But maybe others could contribute (and even review the survey in 
> general and make more comments) ?
>
> J.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:33 AM Christofer Dutz 
> <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah,
> >
> > That's exactly what I wanted to address. The bootstrapping: creating
> contacts for the different types of services (legal) , setup and run 
> the infrastructure to serve the offers I want to do and keep them 
> updated and patched (infrastructure), handling payments and chacing 
> after companies not willing to pay (finance), establish a place people 
> know to offer the services (marketing and pr) (this is probably the 
> thing requiring most
> work) and something to not appear to be a solo fighter, but be part of 
> something bigger.
> >
> > I for my part have invested a big part of my last years on all of this.
> In the end I failed mainly because my company is too small and can't 
> compete with the big closed-source names. Now I'm planning on ending 
> my business after 24 years, as I'm tired of fighting.
> >
> > But I would hate to see others in the same situation, so I would 
> > love to
> help others be successful. If what I learned the hard way helps, 
> that's the open-source idea on a next level. And I think something 
> like what I proposed would probably be the thing I personally would 
> have loved to have had and I probably would still be fully 
> self-employed, if such a thing existed.
> >
> > Thinking of my green energy supplier: when I saw the certificate of
> approval, that Greenpeace attests them serving truly green energy, 
> that convinced me to choose them. Perhaps some form of "Apache 
> approves the way this thing works"-certificate that needs to be 
> renewed (yearly), could be a form to do this without any problematic ties?
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. April 2022, 19:50
> > An: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > ... (snip)
> > > This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities
> > > - there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the 
> > > project and they decide to start or join a commercial company that 
> > > puts their stakes with the project. There are many stories like 
> > > that and even if some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> > > I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to 
> > > see if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of 
> > > doing "good support" for the contributors, such a company would 
> > > have to simply have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
> >
> > I think I get your point here, though this sort of feels like 
> > punting the idea back to "figure out how to be an Influencer® on 
> > your own!" As a software engineer (particularly in the domain of 
> > software development software itself), I find it much easier to 
> > write code, design systems, fix bugs, and other daily work I'm 
> > already used to performing as an individual contributor at any 
> > company. Having all the other skills necessary to run a business has 
> > never really been interesting to me (and I assume similarly for many 
> > others), so such an approach feels somewhat like trying to make it 
> > big on the 'gram or the 'tok (i.e., marketing, publicity, PR, 
> > copywriting, artwork, etc., either provided by yourself or paid for 
> > by someone else as a "sponsor").
> >
> > Christofer's proposal sounds more like a way to try to bootstrap 
> > past that issue, though I can see why it would be fairly difficult 
> > to align with the ASF's values of vendor independence. Maybe there's 
> > some sort of hybrid approach possible similar to ALCs where a sort 
> > of business development kit is provided for people to more easily 
> > create firms for development et al.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>
B KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB  [  X  ܚX KK[XZ[
 ] ][  X  ܚX P  [][ ]K \X K ܙ B  ܈Y][ۘ[  [X[  K[XZ[
 ] Z[  [][ ]K \X K ܙ B B

RE: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Hi All,

I think I commented in the document ... I think two numeric fields: How many hours per week to you work on open-source "paid" and "unpaid" would allow not only the type of evaluation regardings the gender distribution, but also would allow non-dei related analysis.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Katia Rojas <ka...@apache.org> 
Sent: Dienstag, 26. April 2022 20:09
To: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
Cc: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

Hello Jarek,

Those are very good questions.
Based on those questions we are assessing the following topics:

1.  Which percentage of the Paid/Unpaid belongs to each gender? It could be interesting and potentially actionable if we see a ratio mismatch between paid / unpaid.

2. How would this information help with contributor experience improvement?

3. Could we summarise the questions in one or two questions, open or closed?

We are following up on those topics in the slack channel and the google docs as well.

Thanks,
Katia


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:13 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I think we have a great opportunity to get much more insight on what 
> is really needed here.
>
> Katia and the Diversity team are running the 2022 Survey about the 
> contributor's and there was already a question about whether people 
> are being paid/ not paid / mixed.
>
> I think - since this is an important topic - we should gather a bit 
> more stats on what the contributor source of paid work is and what are 
> the biggest obstacles they face in case they want to be paid. I have a 
> feeling that all of us are looking at that from their personal 
> experience and perspectives, but this might vary wildly and the survey 
> seems to be a perfect opportunity to find out more.
>
> The announcement is here and Katia asked for comments till 29th of 
> April - so we have still 3 days:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8r0gmw5f10r16drwc5wnyvgvppq3cbcw
>
> I already added a comment describing my ideas for the survey
> questions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s0TVBFf-KvOTl3IejI2FFOOTdkugZlX_pt
> nN6YWMFN0/edit?disco=AAAAYgvywxI
>
> But maybe others could contribute (and even review the survey in 
> general and make more comments) ?
>
> J.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:33 AM Christofer Dutz 
> <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah,
> >
> > That's exactly what I wanted to address. The bootstrapping: creating
> contacts for the different types of services (legal) , setup and run 
> the infrastructure to serve the offers I want to do and keep them 
> updated and patched (infrastructure), handling payments and chacing 
> after companies not willing to pay (finance), establish a place people 
> know to offer the services (marketing and pr) (this is probably the 
> thing requiring most
> work) and something to not appear to be a solo fighter, but be part of 
> something bigger.
> >
> > I for my part have invested a big part of my last years on all of this.
> In the end I failed mainly because my company is too small and can't 
> compete with the big closed-source names. Now I'm planning on ending 
> my business after 24 years, as I'm tired of fighting.
> >
> > But I would hate to see others in the same situation, so I would 
> > love to
> help others be successful. If what I learned the hard way helps, 
> that's the open-source idea on a next level. And I think something 
> like what I proposed would probably be the thing I personally would 
> have loved to have had and I probably would still be fully 
> self-employed, if such a thing existed.
> >
> > Thinking of my green energy supplier: when I saw the certificate of
> approval, that Greenpeace attests them serving truly green energy, 
> that convinced me to choose them. Perhaps some form of "Apache 
> approves the way this thing works"-certificate that needs to be 
> renewed (yearly), could be a form to do this without any problematic ties?
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. April 2022, 19:50
> > An: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > ... (snip)
> > > This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities 
> > > - there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the 
> > > project and they decide to start or join a commercial company that 
> > > puts their stakes with the project. There are many stories like 
> > > that and even if some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> > > I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to 
> > > see if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of 
> > > doing "good support" for the contributors, such a company would 
> > > have to simply have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
> >
> > I think I get your point here, though this sort of feels like 
> > punting the idea back to "figure out how to be an Influencer® on 
> > your own!" As a software engineer (particularly in the domain of 
> > software development software itself), I find it much easier to 
> > write code, design systems, fix bugs, and other daily work I'm 
> > already used to performing as an individual contributor at any 
> > company. Having all the other skills necessary to run a business has 
> > never really been interesting to me (and I assume similarly for many 
> > others), so such an approach feels somewhat like trying to make it 
> > big on the 'gram or the 'tok (i.e., marketing, publicity, PR, 
> > copywriting, artwork, etc., either provided by yourself or paid for 
> > by someone else as a "sponsor").
> >
> > Christofer's proposal sounds more like a way to try to bootstrap 
> > past that issue, though I can see why it would be fairly difficult 
> > to align with the ASF's values of vendor independence. Maybe there's 
> > some sort of hybrid approach possible similar to ALCs where a sort 
> > of business development kit is provided for people to more easily 
> > create firms for development et al.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Katia Rojas <ka...@apache.org>]

Hello Jarek,

Those are very good questions.
Based on those questions we are assessing the following topics:

1.  Which percentage of the Paid/Unpaid belongs to each gender? It could be
interesting and potentially actionable if we see a ratio mismatch between
paid / unpaid.

2. How would this information help with contributor experience improvement?

3. Could we summarise the questions in one or two questions, open or
closed?

We are following up on those topics in the slack channel and the google
docs as well.

Thanks,
Katia


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:13 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I think we have a great opportunity to get much more insight on what
> is really needed here.
>
> Katia and the Diversity team are running the 2022 Survey about the
> contributor's and there was already a question about whether people
> are being paid/ not paid / mixed.
>
> I think - since this is an important topic - we should gather a bit
> more stats on what the contributor source of paid work is and what are
> the biggest obstacles they face in case they want to be paid. I have a
> feeling that all of us are looking at that from their personal
> experience and perspectives, but this might vary wildly and the survey
> seems to be a perfect opportunity to find out more.
>
> The announcement is here and Katia asked for comments till 29th of
> April - so we have still 3 days:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8r0gmw5f10r16drwc5wnyvgvppq3cbcw
>
> I already added a comment describing my ideas for the survey
> questions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s0TVBFf-KvOTl3IejI2FFOOTdkugZlX_ptnN6YWMFN0/edit?disco=AAAAYgvywxI
>
> But maybe others could contribute (and even review the survey in
> general and make more comments) ?
>
> J.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:33 AM Christofer Dutz
> <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah,
> >
> > That's exactly what I wanted to address. The bootstrapping: creating
> contacts for the different types of services (legal) , setup and run the
> infrastructure to serve the offers I want to do and keep them updated and
> patched (infrastructure), handling payments and chacing after companies not
> willing to pay (finance), establish a place people know to offer the
> services (marketing and pr) (this is probably the thing requiring most
> work) and something to not appear to be a solo fighter, but be part of
> something bigger.
> >
> > I for my part have invested a big part of my last years on all of this.
> In the end I failed mainly because my company is too small and can't
> compete with the big closed-source names. Now I'm planning on ending my
> business after 24 years, as I'm tired of fighting.
> >
> > But I would hate to see others in the same situation, so I would love to
> help others be successful. If what I learned the hard way helps, that's the
> open-source idea on a next level. And I think something like what I
> proposed would probably be the thing I personally would have loved to have
> had and I probably would still be fully self-employed, if such a thing
> existed.
> >
> > Thinking of my green energy supplier: when I saw the certificate of
> approval, that Greenpeace attests them serving truly green energy, that
> convinced me to choose them. Perhaps some form of "Apache approves the way
> this thing works"-certificate that needs to be renewed (yearly), could be a
> form to do this without any problematic ties?
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. April 2022, 19:50
> > An: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > ... (snip)
> > > This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities -
> > > there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project
> > > and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their
> > > stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if
> > > some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> > > I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see
> > > if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good
> > > support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply
> > > have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
> >
> > I think I get your point here, though this sort of feels like punting
> > the idea back to "figure out how to be an Influencer® on your own!" As
> > a software engineer (particularly in the domain of software
> > development software itself), I find it much easier to write code,
> > design systems, fix bugs, and other daily work I'm already used to
> > performing as an individual contributor at any company. Having all the
> > other skills necessary to run a business has never really been
> > interesting to me (and I assume similarly for many others), so such an
> > approach feels somewhat like trying to make it big on the 'gram or the
> > 'tok (i.e., marketing, publicity, PR, copywriting, artwork, etc.,
> > either provided by yourself or paid for by someone else as a
> > "sponsor").
> >
> > Christofer's proposal sounds more like a way to try to bootstrap past
> > that issue, though I can see why it would be fairly difficult to align
> > with the ASF's values of vendor independence. Maybe there's some sort
> > of hybrid approach possible similar to ALCs where a sort of business
> > development kit is provided for people to more easily create firms for
> > development et al.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

Hello everyone,

I think we have a great opportunity to get much more insight on what
is really needed here.

Katia and the Diversity team are running the 2022 Survey about the
contributor's and there was already a question about whether people
are being paid/ not paid / mixed.

I think - since this is an important topic - we should gather a bit
more stats on what the contributor source of paid work is and what are
the biggest obstacles they face in case they want to be paid. I have a
feeling that all of us are looking at that from their personal
experience and perspectives, but this might vary wildly and the survey
seems to be a perfect opportunity to find out more.

The announcement is here and Katia asked for comments till 29th of
April - so we have still 3 days:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/8r0gmw5f10r16drwc5wnyvgvppq3cbcw

I already added a comment describing my ideas for the survey
questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s0TVBFf-KvOTl3IejI2FFOOTdkugZlX_ptnN6YWMFN0/edit?disco=AAAAYgvywxI

But maybe others could contribute (and even review the survey in
general and make more comments) ?

J.



On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:33 AM Christofer Dutz
<ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Yeah,
>
> That's exactly what I wanted to address. The bootstrapping: creating contacts for the different types of services (legal) , setup and run the infrastructure to serve the offers I want to do and keep them updated and patched (infrastructure), handling payments and chacing after companies not willing to pay (finance), establish a place people know to offer the services (marketing and pr) (this is probably the thing requiring most work) and something to not appear to be a solo fighter, but be part of something bigger.
>
> I for my part have invested a big part of my last years on all of this. In the end I failed mainly because my company is too small and can't compete with the big closed-source names. Now I'm planning on ending my business after 24 years, as I'm tired of fighting.
>
> But I would hate to see others in the same situation, so I would love to help others be successful. If what I learned the hard way helps, that's the open-source idea on a next level. And I think something like what I proposed would probably be the thing I personally would have loved to have had and I probably would still be fully self-employed, if such a thing existed.
>
> Thinking of my green energy supplier: when I saw the certificate of approval, that Greenpeace attests them serving truly green energy, that convinced me to choose them. Perhaps some form of "Apache approves the way this thing works"-certificate that needs to be renewed (yearly), could be a form to do this without any problematic ties?
>
>
> Chris
>
> Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. April 2022, 19:50
> An: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > ... (snip)
> > This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities -
> > there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project
> > and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their
> > stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if
> > some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> > I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see
> > if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good
> > support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply
> > have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.
>
> I think I get your point here, though this sort of feels like punting
> the idea back to "figure out how to be an Influencer® on your own!" As
> a software engineer (particularly in the domain of software
> development software itself), I find it much easier to write code,
> design systems, fix bugs, and other daily work I'm already used to
> performing as an individual contributor at any company. Having all the
> other skills necessary to run a business has never really been
> interesting to me (and I assume similarly for many others), so such an
> approach feels somewhat like trying to make it big on the 'gram or the
> 'tok (i.e., marketing, publicity, PR, copywriting, artwork, etc.,
> either provided by yourself or paid for by someone else as a
> "sponsor").
>
> Christofer's proposal sounds more like a way to try to bootstrap past
> that issue, though I can see why it would be fairly difficult to align
> with the ASF's values of vendor independence. Maybe there's some sort
> of hybrid approach possible similar to ALCs where a sort of business
> development kit is provided for people to more easily create firms for
> development et al.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Yeah,

That's exactly what I wanted to address. The bootstrapping: creating contacts for the different types of services (legal) , setup and run the infrastructure to serve the offers I want to do and keep them updated and patched (infrastructure), handling payments and chacing after companies not willing to pay (finance), establish a place people know to offer the services (marketing and pr) (this is probably the thing requiring most work) and something to not appear to be a solo fighter, but be part of something bigger.

I for my part have invested a big part of my last years on all of this. In the end I failed mainly because my company is too small and can't compete with the big closed-source names. Now I'm planning on ending my business after 24 years, as I'm tired of fighting.

But I would hate to see others in the same situation, so I would love to help others be successful. If what I learned the hard way helps, that's the open-source idea on a next level. And I think something like what I proposed would probably be the thing I personally would have loved to have had and I probably would still be fully self-employed, if such a thing existed.

Thinking of my green energy supplier: when I saw the certificate of approval, that Greenpeace attests them serving truly green energy, that convinced me to choose them. Perhaps some form of "Apache approves the way this thing works"-certificate that needs to be renewed (yearly), could be a form to do this without any problematic ties?


Chris

Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
Von: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. April 2022, 19:50
An: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> ... (snip)
> This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities -
> there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project
> and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their
> stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if
> some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see
> if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good
> support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply
> have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.

I think I get your point here, though this sort of feels like punting
the idea back to "figure out how to be an Influencer® on your own!" As
a software engineer (particularly in the domain of software
development software itself), I find it much easier to write code,
design systems, fix bugs, and other daily work I'm already used to
performing as an individual contributor at any company. Having all the
other skills necessary to run a business has never really been
interesting to me (and I assume similarly for many others), so such an
approach feels somewhat like trying to make it big on the 'gram or the
'tok (i.e., marketing, publicity, PR, copywriting, artwork, etc.,
either provided by yourself or paid for by someone else as a
"sponsor").

Christofer's proposal sounds more like a way to try to bootstrap past
that issue, though I can see why it would be fairly difficult to align
with the ASF's values of vendor independence. Maybe there's some sort
of hybrid approach possible similar to ALCs where a sort of business
development kit is provided for people to more easily create firms for
development et al.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> ... (snip)
> This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities -
> there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project
> and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their
> stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if
> some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
> I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see
> if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good
> support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply
> have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.

I think I get your point here, though this sort of feels like punting
the idea back to "figure out how to be an Influencer® on your own!" As
a software engineer (particularly in the domain of software
development software itself), I find it much easier to write code,
design systems, fix bugs, and other daily work I'm already used to
performing as an individual contributor at any company. Having all the
other skills necessary to run a business has never really been
interesting to me (and I assume similarly for many others), so such an
approach feels somewhat like trying to make it big on the 'gram or the
'tok (i.e., marketing, publicity, PR, copywriting, artwork, etc.,
either provided by yourself or paid for by someone else as a
"sponsor").

Christofer's proposal sounds more like a way to try to bootstrap past
that issue, though I can see why it would be fairly difficult to align
with the ASF's values of vendor independence. Maybe there's some sort
of hybrid approach possible similar to ALCs where a sort of business
development kit is provided for people to more easily create firms for
development et al.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea?

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

I like the idea, not silly at all, but I think it has one caveat.

Contrary to what you wrote about the ASF values, I think (that's my
first thought at least) that if it happens it should be an individual
initiative of some members. And IMHO there should be no formal
board/ASF affiliation IMHO because then it is - at least that's my gut
feeling - quite contrary to the values and the ASF legal status.

As I see it - people representing the Support Inc. company (even if
they are from ASF) should not really be "ASF representatives" because
if they do, this puts some responsibilities and guarantees on both
sides (and especially on the ASF). There are certain guarantees that
come with more or less formal association with the ASF brand and I
think if the board overlooks the "Support Inc." - by definition it has
some guarantees (and I do not know for sure but that would likely not
be legal when it comes to the ASF status). But that would not (I
think) preclude that some of the founders are board members. As long
as there is a good care about conflict of interests separation, the
multiple-hat idea is quite easy to apply here.

That would likely make Support Inc. less "attractive" - especially for
the potential customers (precisely because of the lack of those
guarantees by the ASF). But on the other hand, if this company is run
and started by people who are "well established" in the OSS community
the attractiveness of such a Support Inc. company is already high. If
anything, by the network of individual relations of those people who
start it. In a way this would be similar approach as Tidelift (some of
the people there are with the OSS background), but it could be
structured differently (with different incentivization for both
customers and contributors, focusing more on individual relationships
of people who would start it rather than on "brand/company", different
marketing and promotion ideas - so it could be better suited for the
ASF projects. And it could become part of the "ecosystem" around the
ASF (which the ASF could actually list on the page among others like
Tiidelfit without endorsement or guarantees). So it might be a YABD
(Yet Another But Different) Tidelift-like company.

This is a model similar to many ASF projects commercial activities -
there are people, individuals with merit and experience in the project
and they decide to start or join a commercial company that puts their
stakes with the project. There are many stories like that and even if
some of the people are PMC members and committers that might work.
I see that it could work here as well. I think it is important to see
if there can be a real business model behind it. On top of doing "good
support" for the contributors, such a company would have to simply
have some business model and be a normal "business" I think.

I am not sure if such an approach is contrary to the idea of yours
Chris, or whether this is something that you also considered or
whether "non-official-affiliation" is a "killer" in your idea (I hope
not :). And I am not 100% sure if my "non-affiliation" is that
important. I think it is, but I would love to hear what others and You
have to say there.

J.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:11 PM Christofer Dutz
<ch...@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.
>
> 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 and therefore the individual wouldn’t have to (I usually spent 2000-4000€/year on legal advice for stuff like that). 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.
>
> 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).
> 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.
>
> Chris
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org