Hi all,
I've been looking over the information about FSFE donors[1] and total revenues[2]
I feel there is a bit of a gap between these two pages and it does not reveal how fellowship contributions relate to other revenue.
The donors page says the top 5 donate over EUR 12,000 per year each and less than 10% of the budget each, so that means those five companies are donating between EUR 60,000 and EUR 325,000 in total.
Could FSFE provide more details:
- what is the total sum from the fellowship program and what is it as a percentage of total revenue?
- how many fellows contribute to the program?
- what is the total percentage of funds from the top 5 corporate donors?
- list the top 20 donors by percentage, without their names perhaps
- are there any revenue sources other than direct donations to FSFE, for example, revenue from the summit and legal network/workshop? Have these already been included in the public revenue figures? Are the total receipts or only the profit from such events counted as part of the revenue total?
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus.en.html 2. https://fsfe.org/about/funds/funds.en.html
Hi Daniel,
I feel there is a bit of a gap between these two pages and it does not reveal how fellowship contributions relate to other revenue.
That's surprising to me, because if you click down to 2016 as an example, you will find the answer to your first question:
- what is the total sum from the fellowship program and what is it as a
percentage of total revenue?
https://fsfe.org/about/funds/2016.en.html gives fellowship contributions of 187,247.70 EUR compared to a total income of 649,194.75, so the percentage of total income is ca 29%.
- how many fellows contribute to the program?
That information is typically not published, but it's available to our core team internally, and you should have that information in the weekly reports you receive.
- what is the total percentage of funds from the top 5 corporate donors?
- list the top 20 donors by percentage, without their names perhaps
We list information about our donors according to the German Transparency International's initiative "Transparent Civil Society". You can find more information here:
https://fsfe.org/about/transparency-commitment.en.html
This also means we list publicly those who contribute more than 10% of our annual budget. If you propose we go further in our transparency than this, I believe you should make a proposal for this to the members.
- are there any revenue sources other than direct donations to FSFE, for
example, revenue from the summit and legal network/workshop? Have these already been included in the public revenue figures? Are the total receipts or only the profit from such events counted as part of the revenue total?
As mentioned, on the detailed page for each fiscal year, you can find a breakdown of the income in more details including our income from merchandise and paid services. The latter is typically income rendered from speaker's fees and similar.
People then donate to the FSFE for a variety of reasons: some do it because they appreciate our internship program, others because they would like to support our legal work. I'm not aware of any donation which is earmarked for a specific purpose, and so regardless of *why* people donate, we list it as a donation.
Then, separately, we of course also list our expenses for our areas of work, including our legal work which then includes management of the legal network and our annual Legal & Licensing Workshop.
Sincerely,
On 14/08/17 11:25, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I feel there is a bit of a gap between these two pages and it does not reveal how fellowship contributions relate to other revenue.
That's surprising to me, because if you click down to 2016 as an example, you will find the answer to your first question:
- what is the total sum from the fellowship program and what is it as a
percentage of total revenue?
https://fsfe.org/about/funds/2016.en.html gives fellowship contributions of 187,247.70 EUR compared to a total income of 649,194.75, so the percentage of total income is ca 29%.
Clicking the year wasn't obvious, it only underlines the "2016" link when the mouse moves over it. While looking at a laptop screen it is particularly easy not to notice the year is clickable.
- how many fellows contribute to the program?
That information is typically not published, but it's available to our core team internally, and you should have that information in the weekly reports you receive.
Is there a strong reason not to publish that?
- what is the total percentage of funds from the top 5 corporate donors?
- list the top 20 donors by percentage, without their names perhaps
We list information about our donors according to the German Transparency International's initiative "Transparent Civil Society". You can find more information here:
https://fsfe.org/about/transparency-commitment.en.html
This also means we list publicly those who contribute more than 10% of our annual budget. If you propose we go further in our transparency than this, I believe you should make a proposal for this to the members.
As fellowship representative, I'm keen to see how the top donors relate to the fellowship contributions: which group is donating more, or is it equal for example?
- are there any revenue sources other than direct donations to FSFE, for
example, revenue from the summit and legal network/workshop? Have these already been included in the public revenue figures? Are the total receipts or only the profit from such events counted as part of the revenue total?
As mentioned, on the detailed page for each fiscal year, you can find a breakdown of the income in more details including our income from merchandise and paid services. The latter is typically income rendered from speaker's fees and similar.
Could you provide a better breakdown of "Paid services"?
People then donate to the FSFE for a variety of reasons: some do it because they appreciate our internship program, others because they would like to support our legal work. I'm not aware of any donation which is earmarked for a specific purpose, and so regardless of *why* people donate, we list it as a donation.
Then, separately, we of course also list our expenses for our areas of work, including our legal work which then includes management of the legal network and our annual Legal & Licensing Workshop.
I agree that there are many different reasons for donations and it is not always possible to work out what they are.
However, if somebody makes a payment that is directly connected with participation in the summit, the legal network or the Legal & Licensing Workshop, is that money counted as part of the regular donations too? Or does it go under paid services? Or are any of those things accounted for through a different legal structure or set of accounts?
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Is there a strong reason not to publish that?
When we started reporting the number internally, the question was about the benefit of reporting this with some feeling that publishing the (then low) number of fellows would deter people from joining. That was in 2005 though, and we have a few more supporters today. :-)
Still though, since this was discuss in the European Core Team, I believe you can also raise this issue in the core team.
As fellowship representative, I'm keen to see how the top donors relate to the fellowship contributions: which group is donating more, or is it equal for example?
That's information I don't have easily, but you can ask Reinhard or Ulrike about this once they're back from vacation.
Could you provide a better breakdown of "Paid services"?
Again, I would need to defer to Reinhard and Ulrike. I could probably find some information by digging into the actual accounting files, but it would be much easier for Reinhard to provide an indication of this when he's back.
However, if somebody makes a payment that is directly connected with participation in the summit, the legal network or the Legal & Licensing Workshop, is that money counted as part of the regular donations too?
That's counted as a regular donation, yes.
Or does it go under paid services? Or are any of those things accounted for through a different legal structure or set of accounts?
There are no separate legal structures or accounts. What you see on our website is what there is. (We did have a Chapter Germany previously, but that has now been dissolved).
On 14/08/17 12:00, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Is there a strong reason not to publish that?
When we started reporting the number internally, the question was about the benefit of reporting this with some feeling that publishing the (then low) number of fellows would deter people from joining. That was in 2005 though, and we have a few more supporters today. :-)
Still though, since this was discuss in the European Core Team, I believe you can also raise this issue in the core team.
It is already public in the report[1] on the fellowship elections.
As fellowship representative, I'm keen to see how the top donors relate to the fellowship contributions: which group is donating more, or is it equal for example?
That's information I don't have easily, but you can ask Reinhard or Ulrike about this once they're back from vacation.
Could you provide a better breakdown of "Paid services"?
Again, I would need to defer to Reinhard and Ulrike. I could probably find some information by digging into the actual accounting files, but it would be much easier for Reinhard to provide an indication of this when he's back.
However, if somebody makes a payment that is directly connected with participation in the summit, the legal network or the Legal & Licensing Workshop, is that money counted as part of the regular donations too?
That's counted as a regular donation, yes.
It would be very useful to start counting that separately and also report separately on the costs of each of those activities.
Then it will be much easier for fellows to understand if those are subsidised by the fellowship donations or if those things are self supporting.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-April/011474.html
Hi Daniel,
It is already public in the report[1] on the fellowship elections.
Yes, you may be able to find occasional references to it and numbers which you may infer from other information given.
Then it will be much easier for fellows to understand if those are subsidised by the fellowship donations or if those things are self supporting.
I'm not sure I would like this to develop into a direction where our activities must be self supporting. FSFE supporters contribute to all our activities: our legal work, our policy work, as well as the work of local FSFE groups, and so on.
Each activity is also engaged in because it's important for Free Software, not because we expect to make money from it. We don't expect any activity to cover its own costs, though some of them do, and more so. We probably receive more funding due to our legal work than it costs us, but that doesn't mean we should focus on that and do less policy work where the opposite may be true, for instance.
On 14/08/17 15:04, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel,
It is already public in the report[1] on the fellowship elections.
Yes, you may be able to find occasional references to it and numbers which you may infer from other information given.
Then it will be much easier for fellows to understand if those are subsidised by the fellowship donations or if those things are self supporting.
I'm not sure I would like this to develop into a direction where our activities must be self supporting. FSFE supporters contribute to all our activities: our legal work, our policy work, as well as the work of local FSFE groups, and so on.
Each activity is also engaged in because it's important for Free Software, not because we expect to make money from it. We don't expect any activity to cover its own costs, though some of them do, and more so. We probably receive more funding due to our legal work than it costs us, but that doesn't mean we should focus on that and do less policy work where the opposite may be true, for instance.
Maybe you could provide the detailed figures to the GA and the public statements could provide some notices indicating which activities are self supporting. In a way, a self-supporting activity is a bit like a donor.
I'm not against the idea of subsidizing worthwhile activities for the greater benefit of free software, but it would be helpful to give fellows transparency about such decisions. It may actually provide an incentive for people to contribute more.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Maybe you could provide the detailed figures to the GA and the public statements could provide some notices indicating which activities are self supporting. In a way, a self-supporting activity is a bit like a donor.
How about if we work on this as part of the 2017 financial report? You will be receiving it in much greater detail as part of your role, and you could then help us work on how and what is sensible to publish.
Hi,
Am 2017-08-14 um 12:00 schrieb Jonas Oberg:
As fellowship representative, I'm keen to see how the top donors relate to the fellowship contributions: which group is donating more, or is it equal for example?
That's information I don't have easily, but you can ask Reinhard or Ulrike about this once they're back from vacation.
The 5 donors listed as "Gold Donors" on the web page https://fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus-2016.en.html donated a total of 154.691,80 in that year, that's significantly less than the donations we received through the Fellowship. The Fellowship is the main pillar of FSFE's finances, it was like that from the start and now is it more than ever.
Could you provide a better breakdown of "Paid services"?
Again, I would need to defer to Reinhard and Ulrike. I could probably find some information by digging into the actual accounting files, but it would be much easier for Reinhard to provide an indication of this when he's back.
Most of this is ticket sales for the European Legal and Licensing Workshop organised by FSFE. Apart from that, we subrent a part of the office space to another organisation from the Free Software field, and a (very small) share of that items is speaker fees we get.
HTH,