Community Members Directing Funds

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Ian Lynagh wrote at 07:09 (EST):
> Or alternatively, could a project have a "funding drive to implement
> X", where all money donated would only be allowed to be used to
> implement X?

Conservancy already does some of this, as mentioned in my previous
email.

> (if so, what happens if there is surplus? Perhaps the T&Cs would say
> that that would become general money).

Well, this depends on project to project.  I typically urge projects to
not tie themselves into funding only one thing.  As you'll see in the
PyPy proposals, such as http://pypy.org/py3donate.html, which says:

    Should we not receive enough donations to complete all stages by 1st
    March 2012 at the latest, we will try our best to make PyPy support
    Python 3 anyway. We however reserve the right to shift any unused
    funds to other PyPy activities when that date is reached. Of course,
    since the Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization
    incorporated in NY, USA, all funds will, regardless of their use, be
    spent in a way that benefits the general public, the advancement of
    Open Source and Free Software, and in particular the PyPy community
    and the PyPy codebase.

I tend to urge projects to add text like this to grant proposals so
funds aren't forever earmarked in a way that they can't be used.


> If so, presumably you could have a "funding drive to implement X" and
> a "funding drive to implement Y" running in parallel?

Yes, although I discourage this, because it can split your donor base.
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy