Re: Swarm and OpenGL & Re: help us design nonprofit org funding mechanisms

[glen e. p. ropella]

Scott Christley writes:
 > >Hmmm.  So how much of your 3D library could we use for Swarm,
 > >assuming that one day we'll want to work both with and 
 > >separate from GNUStep?
 >
 >Umm well that's an ambiguous question; how much do you want to use? ;-)

I would suspect that we'd want to use as much as possible.
Of course, since Patrick has already started on the 3D stuff,
alot depends on what he contributes back.  The answer I'm hoping
from you is "as much as you want."  Can we link directly to your
3d library and just call functions?  Or do we have to have GNUStep
running underneath?

 > >1) Charge for "membership" in a type of entity that has influence over
 > >the direction of the development of the package.
 > 
 > I would shy away from this because the notion that money is linked to
 > development work reminds me of special interests groups that exist within
 > the US government.  It gives the corporations an impression that they can
 > influence the direction of development, and it throws politics into the
 > development process where only technical and scientific questions should be
 > at debate.
 > 
 > >2) Charge for "membership" in a type of entity that provides levels of
 > >service to the members.
 > 
 > This is a good idea but now you muddled the water regarding whether this
 > non-profit is just suppose to be a development organization or is it also
 > trying to appeal for commercial support accounts.

I agree on both counts.  The first one smacks of the "money talks"
attitude, which we already have enough of and leads me to think that
we may as well not form the .org.  And the second "bloats" the .org
with the smaller, implementation-type details that I'm not sure we
want to bog down in.  I mean, there are large companies that deal
with things like this with very big departments (Complaint dept,
PR dept, Quality Control, etc.), none of which (in my opinion) should
be inherent parts of the .org.

 > My idea would be to charge a "membership" but not have it tied to anything,
 > purely charitable.  Set up various levels of membership; don't setup boring
 > levels but make them relate to Swarm itself, like:
 > 
 > Hive Founder ($25,000 or more)
 > 
 > Simulation Modeller ($5,000 or more)
 > 
 > Swarm Associate ($1,000 or more)
 > 
 > Worker Bee ($100 or more)
 > 
 > Pseudo-Random Number ($100 or less)
 > 
 > Then just do a bunch of publicity stuff; send out newsletters (snazzy
 > printed ones), give on-site tours, give tours of commerical installations,
 > send them t-shirts, coffee cups, and CD-ROMS.  Essentially make them feel
 > all warm and fuzzy inside for doing such a good thing; add images and links
 > to their web pages, etc.

This is a good idea.  What you're talking about is focussing on the 
maintenance of the "community" as opposed to focusing on deliverables.
Then that money can be applied to the "mission" of the .org without 
the .org trying to act like a manufacturing entity.  But, there's 
still a problem (I think) with the "what am I getting for my money?"
I understand that it would be "purely charitable"; but, returns on 
investment still apply.  There has to be a pretty strong motivation 
to give.  I suppose we could assign trinkets to the lowest levels of
contributions and get more serious at the higher levels.  Like:

 Queen     ($25,000 <= x )            :  Board membership
 Imago     ( $5,000 <= x < $25,000)   :  on-site visits
 Drone     ( $1,000 <= x <  $5,000)   :  ???
 Worker    (   $500 <= x <  $1,000)   :  t-shirts
 Subimago  (   $100 <= x <    $500)   :  CD subscription
 Grub      (    $50 <= x <    $100)   :  coffee mugs
 Pupa      (           x <     $50)   :  single CD

Of course, the top guys would get everything below their level.
Although, this still seems like a nightmare to administer.

 > As for how to setup a non-profit corp, my suggestion is to get a lawyer to
 > do it for it.  Specifically find a software lawyer who has an existing
 > template for a non-profit software corporation and do some minor
 > modifications.  Generally there needs to be these things:
 > 
 > * a board of directors
 > * at least two executive officers
 > 
 > You can set it up so that Hive Founders automatically get on the Board of
 > Directors so that they can lend their expertise towards the growth of the
 > corporation.  The officers would be the ones actually doing the work, can
 > hire and fire people, etc.

These are the lines in which we're thinking.  Except, I think we
should have two boards: a board of trustees and a technical board.
The board of trustees would be the money/networking people and the 
technical board would be the development people.

glen