Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

ok, lots of comments, so here's an updated suggestion:

* Remove distinction between sponsor and donor.[0]
  - As Andrew Savory said: "a sponsor is entitled to expect
    more for their money, and is probably not what AFFS needs"
    I'll use the term "donor", but either is ok.[1]

* Acknowledge non-monetary donors seperately at the top of
  the page, or when-simple, convert to monetary value.

* List donors in order of monetary value, to give bigger donors
  a more promenent listing.  Headings *could* divide the donors
  into double-digit donation, triple-digit, etc.

* Donations are acknowledged for 1 year.

* Donations will be accepted from anyone, with the commitee
  discretion for special circumstances.  I think M$ is the
  only company people would have real issues with, and this
  will likely never happen.

* accept anonymous donations? of course.

* leaflets mention the donors page, not a company name.  Large
  printed materials *could* include a list of current donors.
  (or maybe triple-digit donors, current as of <date> etc.)

[0] When an entity gives AFFS 1000, I don't see a reason to
distinguish between donation and sponsorship.  And if an
entity gives AFFS 1000, I don't see why another entity
should be able to cover 100 worth of printing costs and
get their name on our leaflets.

[1] "donors", or "supporters", or "sponsors".

MJ Ray said:
> I see 13 companies from the whole of Europe for 2003, as well as a
> number of personal donations ...  FSF's comparable page has 33
> (minimum donation+$500).  How will this scale to the UK?

Hopefully it will scale well, but maintaining AFFS integrity
is the more important issue.  FSFE don't seem to try very hard
to get donations, they don't even accept credit cards.  FSF
have 33 corporate sponsors, but in 2002 they listed 594
"supporters", each of $100 or greater.

What do we do about current sponsors?
This is a backwards compatibilty issue.  AFFS has 2 sponsors?
I think we could drop compatibility.  Talk to the 2 companys,
ask if they have a problem with being called donors, being
creditted on the donors page.


On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:53:01PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-16 12:28:36 +0100 Andrew Savory <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
> 
> >I think this looks like the best approach with the least problems. Any
> >objections from anyone?
> 
> I'd like a few details nailed down before agreeing, so I know what I'm 
> agreeing to.

-- 
Ciaran O'Riordan - http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/