[Eg-oversight-board] Comments on the "Strategic Investment fund", fundraising, & conference cost planning (was Re: Evergreen Oversight Board Meeting, Minutes - 5/15/12)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

I noticed in the minutes last the content regarding the "Strategic
Investment Fund".  I had a few comments on that issue.

Amy Terlaga wrote on 15 May in the Evergreen Oversight Board Minutes:
> ... the completion of Evergreen development projects currently rests
> with individual organizations.  The Evergreen community, under the
> auspices of the SFC could work with these individual organizations to
> help make their projects happen.  Galen suggested that we establish
> the fund by putting some of the conference profits into that fund.  He
> suggested 25%.  He also suggested that we can solicit donations for
> this fund.  Elizabeth suggested that instead of a percentage, that a
> fixed amount be put into this fund and then make it aware to the
> community.  Jim moved that $15,000 be set aside for next year’s
> conference committee and the rest of the profit would be put into the
> fund.  Elizabeth seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.

My first comment is one of concern that having only $15,000 aside as a
"conference risk nest egg" is too low.  For example, the current
financial risk of the Evergreen 2013 contracts are as follows:

   CA$38,398.50 if canceled between now        and 2012-11-09
   CA$51,198.00 if canceled between 2012-11-10 and 2013-02-24
   CA$55,521.20 if canceled between 2013-02-25 and 2012-04-03
   CA$64,258.60 if canceled after   2013-04-04

Therefore, I'd prefer it if, between now and the conference, Evergreen
had those needed amounts at all time in the bank.  Ideally, Evergreen
would have CA$64,258.60 (US$62,728.04) right now.

Of course, as I explained when the Vancouver team started their work,
Conservancy decided not to hold Evergreen to the rules Conservancy used
previously for project conferences (whereby you'd have needed
CA$38,398.50 in the bank to even sign the contracts).  I specifically
felt the Vancouver team should be rewarded for planning ahead, and thus
the exception was made, but that exception does generate financial risk
for Conservancy.

Conservancy would thus be very concerned if Evergreen asked to spend any
money from its fund beyond the liabilities of the standing Vancouver
contracts.  Conservancy projects *have* paid hotel room attrition in the
past, and badly planned conferences have been disasters for some other
orgs in our community, so Conservancy must guard against this risk.


That said, I *don't* think Evergreen should stand "frozen" -- doing no
fundraising except for conferences until the right "nest egg" exists.
In fact, I think it would be good for Evergreen to fund work that
advances the project, and I suggest you do launch a fundraising campaign
to support that.  Attached please find a document that Conservancy
recently drafted that talks about putting together project proposals for
software development, which many of our projects do.  Perhaps Evergreen
would want to consider this idea.  Conservancy would be happy to help
with that if you want to pursue it.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Conservancy-Primer_writing-a-project-specific-fundraising-proposal.txt
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20120607/5a07ddf3/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy