On Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:20:44 -0700, Duane Percox <[log in to unmask]>
writes an excellent recap of the funding models discussed here and
elsewhere.  I would like to comment on some of his points.

<snip background>

>Is This Idea Dead?
>-----------------
>I hope not. I think we should give it another shot, but with a little twist.
>
>How about we craft something considering the following facts/issues:
>
>1. Using support contracts as the payment vehicle will not work with HP.
>   This money doesn't usually go to csy directly and they say getting
>   it to them is a big hassle. Lets take HP on their word and back off
>   from this.

Sounds fair to me.  No sense banging our collective heads against the wall.

>2. Make the payment optional. This alleviates HP's concern about the
>   cost of ownership issue.

Hmmmm.  Okay, but what about availability of completed projects to the
installed base who didn't pay for it?  Will the completed projects be
owned (and sold) by HP?  By the users who funded them?  Will we/they
sell them to non-contributors who want that particular project?

>3. Create a concept where organizations that contribute can have a direct
>   voice in the application of the dollars as far as what projects are
>   funded and in what priority order.

Yeah, if you want to dance you got to pay the band.  So what do we do?
$1 = 1 vote?

>4. Consider using Interex as the funding vehicle. If this is not
>   possible then consider creating a separate organization just for
>   this purpose.

Worth considering, except there are a lot of sites/people who don't
belong to Interext for one reason or another.  What do you do about them?

>5. As the user community we have more power than we sometimes think.
>   If enough organizations band together to push this issue and there is
>   real money on the table then HP will need some real good reasons to
>   not accept the money.

The same concept works for co-operatives and unions, why not for us?

>6. That HP started this themselves by using SIGs as a vehicle to
>   prioritize and synthesize the enhancements the installed base
>   is interested in obtaining. We just want to spice it up a little by
>   kicking in some dollars so the number of projects worked on can be
>   increased.

True.

>An Idea
>-------
>How about creating a new class of SIG membership. This would be a
>paying/voting member.

<snip>

Okay, but see #4 above.

My comments in general:
-----------------------
This sounds like a good idea.  However, in order to sell it to my boss
(who controls the purse/wallet strings), I need to be able to show a
return for the money we're going to invest.  That shouldn't be too
hard to do if the projects we want to fund are clearly defined and I can
show how having such-and-such a functionality will directly benefit our
company.  But what about those who don't fund a certain project?  If the
sites who don't fund a project get the same functionality (that I paid
to develop) and they don't have to pay for it (or pay a smaller price
than I did), then where's my incentive to fund the development in the
first place?  Just to be the first one on the block to have something
won't cut it.  I guess I'll just sit back and let you who have the
deep pockets fund this stuff, and I'll get it when the next freeware
tape comes out or the next OS upgrade.

Jim Phillips                            Manager of Information Systems
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]      Therm-O-Link, Inc.
Phone: (330) 527-2124                   P. O. Box 285
  Fax: (330) 527-2123                   Garrettsville, Ohio  44231