Hacker News Reader

Comment by hda2 | Hacker News Reader

> I'm wondering where that money went.

I was wondering the same about the $1M donation they got in 2018. Turns out they misallocated a significant portion of it to things like social outreach programs.

There is nothing wrong with having SRPs if you're a multi-billion tech giant, but a underfunded open source product shouldn't be wasting money on social programs when their primary product was broken (which, in 2018, gnome3 certainly was). At the very least, they could have used it to hold proper user-focus groups to find out how their users actually used their product.

I think the organization is suffering from a serious mismanagement issue.

View on HN

This comment makes no sense at all, every open source non-profit I've ever seen has made social outreach programs their main goal. There's nothing else to spend the funding on. They can't spend a ton of money on focus groups specifically because it's not a multi-billion tech giant and these foundations legally can't be making decisions based on how to make some product profitable. You need to ask a company to do that. These foundations have to make decisions based on their stated mission which is almost always solving a social issue. So in that sense the "primary product" of the foundation is really the community around the project, it actually can't be the project itself.

If you want to start another organization that only does user focus groups then by all means do it, but otherwise you're barking up the wrong tree. The designers (not the foundation) already do user studies regularly anyway, the reason they don't do full focus groups all the time is because it gets expensive real fast.

> making decisions based on how to make some product profitable

Who said anything about profit? How about paying devs & designers, awarding bug bounties, and user testing?

Paying devs and designers to do what? Testing for what? To make a product more profitable so you can further grow the foundation? If it's not doing social outreach or otherwise fulfilling the social mission of the nonprofit then I hope you understand it falls in that category and they can't legally do that, go to any of the member companies if you want that. When these nonprofits hire actual engineers and designers it's usually only on a contract basis to fix very specific problems that have to do with social issues around the project. It's otherwise hard for them to justify hiring staff to do that.

I wish you were wrong. I just looked this up out of curiousity, and Gnome themselves had their charity status denied by the IRS for this reason-

> You have a substantial nonexempt purpose because you develop software published under open source compatible licenses that authorize use by any person for any purpose, including nonexempt purposes such as commercial, recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying.

> Mere publishing under open source licenses for all to use does not show that the poor and underprivileged actually use the Tools. ? You do not limit your distribution and do not know who uses the Tools much less if they use them for artistic purposes. ? you do not know who uses the Tools much less what kind of content they create with the Tools.

That said it should be clear here that this was explicitly for a charity, not just a non profit, but even still it's pretty messed up.

I don't think it's that messed up. If you really want to make something that qualifies as a charity (or a for-profit business) then you can just do that separately. The existence of this foundation doesn't get in the way, they're a home for the trademarks and a few other things but otherwise they don't have much bearing on what you would do.

But there are some people at the foundation who would make it their goal to hire more developers, if the funding was there, it currently isn't.

That reasoning is like denying charity status to a church thrift store because they don't do income verification at the door, to ensure that only poor customers are allowed to shop there.

No, it's not even close to that. Analogies aren't that good of a tool to use here.

Uhh, the Linux Foundation is a non-profit that sponsors people to work on Linux the kernel. How's that possible then?

That's an extremely small percentage, most Linux developers aren't sponsored by the Linux Foundation. The majority of their expenses go towards events and training.

So you're saying it's a question of the threshold of "substantial". Okay, I can believe that.

Not really, the question is how the organization is classified. Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) so they can sponsor some people but it's only for the purposes of furthering "common business interests" and not for profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com