Budget. Eat this.

[Arnulf Christl]

Hi,
I have been thinking a lot regarding the budget that was set up at the
f2f meeting. Although I was physically present I did not really
contribute to this process a lot except trying to get a grip on what was 
going on. I will try to formulate some of my qualms now.

later...
this message has been sitting in my draft folder for three days now and 
did not get any better. I will just send it now and hope to spawn some 
thoughts.

Looking at where Open Source comes from there is no denying that it is a
grass roots movement (in the spatial realm a GRASS roots movement
so to say).

Another question altogether is whether this needs to change? Do we 
really need to set up a large budget? In the hope that especially Gary 
doesn't lose interest (we need you all the same or even more) I am still 
positive that we can do with very little planned for and fixed money 
involved. By setting up a half million budget for the first year we 
change the character of the Foundation a lot and go business right away. 
I don't think that I like that.

(startblabla) Mind me, I am an undertaker of the old school and deeply 
into business, we (some 25 people) live off nothing but selling services 
around Open Source. The overall budget of half a million is not just 
peanuts to me but hey, it is easily spent. (endofblabla)

And this is exactly what makes me stop short. Its not so much that there 
is money involved at all but what it does to our goals. And to our 
governance and to the faith of our contributors. JackD started off as an 
amiable environmentalist, BillG out of a garage and - ok, I am wandering 
off topic.

We at OSGeo currently have eight very healthy projects up and running 
(the software ones). They do not depend on OSGeo spending any money at 
all. That is a fact. Money might accelerate things but it is *not* 
*required*. Emphasis.

So looking at our expenses again - what do we really need in advance?

OSGeo Priority Fulfillment Expenses - $150,000 to $350,000

* To provide resources for foundation projects - infrastructure, funding
(Fundraising), legal, ... - $60,000

This does make sense as we will have to be able to technically provide
for a container to manage and archive all legally relevant project
information, data, code, etc. All the same we are about to prove 
(hopefully) that a .org infrastructure like telascience can jump in 
perfectly well.

* To operate an annual OSGeo Conference, possibly in cooperation with
related efforts (e.g. EOGEO) - $100,000

I believe that the annual conference should finance itself. Fullstop. If 
it does not, there is no need to continue it, then the conference is 
simply dead because no one wants it anymore. I am very sure that a 
commercial provider will be able to estimate the risk and finance a 
conference of this size just fine. If somebody from inside OSGeo wants 
to organize conferences professionally, so much the better - let them do 
it. If we do not find anybody with enough spatial balls - ask O'Reilly. 
We should just let somebody else take on the risk and the work and if 
they make some money out of it - fine. If they mess it up they did it 
for the last time and next year somebody else does it (messes it up 
again, obviously). This is just being highly pragmatic - not 
anti-commercial.

* To make foundation and related software more accessible to end users -
binary "stack" builds, cross package documentation, etc. - $50,000

Yes, but what for? I am sure to be able to get together $50,000 for one 
year all by myself from clients that I am in contact with and who need a 
binary stack. It would be problem-driven and not product-planned.

We would need a channel that we can stuff the money in - and that could 
well be OSGeo. But do we need to fix a budget that we have to reach 
until we really know that somebody is going to pay for it? This is why I 
do not want to accept why FunCom doesn't just start to collect money 
right away. Find out what we have to sell and sell it. That is probably 
too easy. (btw. I still have those €1000,- from FOSSGIS for the t-shirts 
because Adsk did it again! embtw (even more btw) Thanks Gary!((mine was 
scissors, yours was paper))).

Maybe it works this way round: I am perfectly happy if at the end of the 
year we sum up and find out that $6 million went in and out of OSGeo. or 
50 million, I don't care. Big budget, no problem. But why this change of 
heart all of a sudden? Because the money wasn't expected but came in 
through clients who funded projects (software, Edu, Public Geodata 
alike). Maybe part of that money is separated to fund travel to f2f 
meetings and a professionally supported 24/7/356 infrastructure and low 
noise caused by formally operating the foundation. Prevent the 
foundation from becoming a fund-action. No fun in that.

I would hate to end up with us OSGeo folk spending our time cuddling 
with Big Blue and Makrohard to sneak some peanuts out of their pockets. 
We don't want this, do we? Even if we are gorillas and monkeys.

* Promote the use of open source software in the geospatial industry
(not just foundation software)- $133,000

This is the hardest one. Especially because I am personally involved and 
would really love Tyler to do this (name dropper caught in the act) and 
because I would obviously envy anybody of doing it, Tyler included. Now 
- if even me (emotionally even-tempered, shy, humble, never speaking up, 
etc.) feels a lurking lump of 
why-should-someone-get-money-to-do-this-and-its-not-me rise up in the 
belly - then what about all those who do not see the obvious need. 
Sometyler should really be doing this on a full time basis. But 
volunteers hate to work for a corporate business making money out of 
them. Worse problem is that disappointed volunteers don't just wander 
off but tell other people about why they did not like it.

Citing from the Wiki at:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Fundraising

In order to aggressively pursue promotion it is perceived that OSGeo
would need one full time staff member (an executive director) and
substantial resources for promotion, travel, infrastructure support. A
value of $200000 USD per year in general foundation income (as opposed
to conference, or project specific funding) has been suggested as a
desirable goal.

I do not like the wording "aggressively pursue". I don't think that I am 
a wimp but who on earth should we pursue "aggressively"? We explicitly 
state in our charter that we don't want to hurt anybody... This is not 
just funny words.

So what Tyler (damn, wanted to say "The Executive Director to be") would 
need to be is a mentor helping out when there is trouble between the 
bros and sisters of the Foundation. Dine with the rich uncle? Fine. But 
do we need a paid for secretary and then a CTO and then a CKO (would I 
love that job...). And so on.

Can we hammer down somewhere that the 'main decision body' of OSGeo must 
not (is not allowed to) ever spend more than 5% of their 
OSGeo-brainpower thinking about how to fund the next year? I will fight 
for this.

I cannot name the beast any better but hope to have made a point.

Ha - this is an ugly email. Sorry. This is near to trolling - if I was 
on Wikipedia I would try to hide behind some bulgarian IP address...

...still not sent.

I cannot veto the budget, reasons stated. But I would like to raise a 
veto against how to do it.

7of9