<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Ingo,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 2020-10-04 ā 11:58, Ingo Klöcker a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20030252.i32oBTzk8S@breq">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Sonntag, 4. Oktober 2020 00:36:56 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Le 2020-09-27 ā 17:29, Ingo Klöcker a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Sonntag, 27. September 2020 22:54:07 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">El diumenge, 27 de setembre de 2020, a les 21:36:46 CEST, Vincent Pinon
va escriure:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As KDE eV can't allocate
money to a specific project (if I understand correctly)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
That's more a "historically has not wanted" than a "legally can't".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
As one of the auditors of accounting I'll add that tracking money that is
allocated to a specific project will make book keeping much more
complicated. I'm not sure whether the simple tracking of income and
expenses that we currently do will be sufficient.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It's my hope that with the recent KDE eV board public statements about
them
wanting to help people make out a living out of doing KDE stuff this may
change.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
In my opinion, paying people for doing KDE stuff (reminder: we do already
pay quite a few people for doing important KDE stuff) is orthogonal to
allocating money to specific projects. Complexity of book keeping would
change from O(n) to O(n˛).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Can you clarify what you mean?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Currently we have a single big bucket for our money. All money that comes in
(e.g. several thousand PayPal donations per year) goes into this bucket. All
money that we spend is taken from this bucket. That's as simple as it gets.
If we would allow targeted donations then we would have to sort all donations
into multiple buckets. And all of our expenses would need to be taken from the
correct buckets. Additionally, our contractors (e.g. our marketing
contractors) would probably need to start tracking how much time they spend
for a specific project (if we have a bucket for it), so that we can pay them
from the right buckets.
So, maybe it's more a change from O(1) to O(n*m) where n is the number of
transactions and m is the number of different buckets.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thank you, that is much clearer (and way more sensical). I still
don't fully understand though;</p>
<ul>
<li>Would this quantify the resources needed to process a *single*
transaction, or what?</li>
<li>What resources does this quantify? *Manpower*, or computing
resources?<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20030252.i32oBTzk8S@breq">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I think we are way too small (in terms of cash flow) for allowing targeted
donations.
Regards,
Ingo
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Philippe Cloutier
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.philippecloutier.com">http://www.philippecloutier.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>