[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship
From: |
Andrew Savory |
Subject: |
Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:57:18 +0100 (BST) |
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> If you have an opinion about whether we should only accept money, or
> assign monetary values to donations in kind for the purpose of donor
> listing, then please state it.
I've already said in my reply to Marc that I think donations are the best
solution.
> Similarly, how long should donor messages last for?
> Yes, it's obviously simple to remove them, but when?
I'd suggest 1 year.
> OK. Is it possible to define a consistent time to removal based on value?
No, pick one time for all donations. Keep it simple.
> OK. Do you think this would work as an offer? For example, would your
> company or those you know be interested in it? Looking at the FSFE
> page, I see 13 companies from the whole of Europe for 2003, as well as a
> number of personal donations (minimum donation 120 EUR pa, but FSFE has
> no subscription membership, so personal donors are all here, I think).
> FSF's comparable page has 33 (minimum donation $500). How will this
> scale to the UK?
I don't know how others would react to it, but I'd be happy to donate on
these terms.
> I'm not sure that I agree with this. We cannot see through the donor's
> eyes and, to us, clearly £1000 enables more activities than £100.
> Why not use FSFE-style banding?
I'm in favour of keeping it simple.
If donating £100 would leave my name at the bottom of the page, and I felt
I couldn't compete with the big donors, I wouldn't bother.
I think alphabetical donor lists make more sense.
> My opinion: donation yes, sponsorship no. How about you?
+1
> So you are against AFFS accepting any further sponsorship? What should
> we do about our continuing sponsors, such as positive-internet and
> Cyberware? Ask them permission to convert to a repeating donation
> listing?
I think "any" is a difficult word. Sponsorship is something we need to
thrash out on a case-by-case basis, perhaps. On the whole, I'd prefer AFFS
avoids it, but there are some obvious cases (such as infrastructure) where
it just makes sense.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory Email: address@hidden
Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/ Web: www.luminas.co.uk
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, (continued)
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Ciaran O'Riordan, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Marc Eberhard, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, MJ Ray, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Marc Eberhard, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Ramanan Selvaratnam, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Richard Smedley, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, ian, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Richard Smedley, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, ian, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, MJ Ray, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship,
Andrew Savory <=
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Brian Gough, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, MJ Ray, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Richard Smedley, 2003/10/17
RE: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship, Chris Puttick, 2003/10/14