Targeted donations (Re: Fundraising in KDE)

[Philippe Cloutier]

Hi Ingo,

Le 2020-10-04 à 11:58, Ingo Klöcker a écrit :
> On Sonntag, 4. Oktober 2020 00:36:56 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote:
>> Le 2020-09-27 à 17:29, Ingo Klöcker a écrit :
>>> On Sonntag, 27. September 2020 22:54:07 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>>>> El diumenge, 27 de setembre de 2020, a les 21:36:46 CEST, Vincent Pinon
>>>> va escriure:
>>>>> As KDE eV can't allocate
>>>>> money to a specific project (if I understand correctly)
>>>> That's more a "historically has not wanted" than a "legally can't".
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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(n²).
>> Can you clarify what you mean?
> 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.


Thank you, that is much clearer (and way more sensical). I still don't 
fully understand though;

  * Would this quantify the resources needed to process a *single*
    transaction, or what?
  * What resources does this quantify? *Manpower*, or computing resources?


>
> I think we are way too small (in terms of cash flow) for allowing targeted
> donations.
>
> Regards,
> Ingo

-- 
Philippe Cloutier
http://www.philippecloutier.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20201004/fc49e927/attachment.htm>