Talk:Nonprofit Assistance Program Proposal

This is Richard, posting some comments from the staff email list:

The basic proposal is a good direction for the future of Collab. I like the start small and work up approach. Future discussions will have to address the method of payment, contract commitments, and protecting FG from any losses, which is still a major concern. For now, I think we can all agree this is a good direction to go. The inertia required to get the ball rolling with our current finances, under staffing, and possible reductions may be a problem.

-- Rick

kathie here - I couldn't add this to text so am sending it via e-mail.

Shit is kind of fun, but won't be received well by the CEO's we'll need to work with. How about this: Hardware, Information, Tech support and software (we deliver Hits).

Also, I'm not sure of wording, but we should change significant to reflect breaking even. i.e. Coll should pay for itself, with additional funds to FG being important.

Next: goals are absolutely necessary, but don't lose sight of changing said goals, as needed, to achieve end product. Goals are necessary, but should never fixed.

And, I'm 100%, due to overall nature and value of Colb, in favor of a Full Time coordinator, dedicated exclusively to that job, to be assigned within the next 3 months.

-- Kathie

rfs 08:46, 18 Jan 2005 (PST)

Pete's thoughts

Couple thoughts.

First, it seems to me that one of the central benefits the Collab program offers to clients is freedom from vendor lock-in. The transparency inherent in open-source solutions should, ideally, make it possible for organizations to seek support and development from a variety of vendors/contractors, or develop those skills internally.

Will the desire for Collab (SHIT, HITS, whatever) to be a revenue-generator, or other factors, ever conflict with this potential benefit? For instance, will Free Geek developers ever cut corners on design or documentation, under the assumption that knowledgeable FG staff will always be there to service the software?

If so, what can be done ahead of time to ensure we keep our clients in a position of maximum flexibility? SHOULD that be one of Free Geek's goals?

Second, I discussed Richard's draft with a friend, who has done extensive reporting on nonprofits, and currently works for the Morrison Center. I've pasted his comments below, followed by some comments of my own. By way of background, he is not at all a computer geek, but shortly before he got this job, I installed Firefox on his home computer, and he loves it.

Dan's comments:

If you're going to the meeting, one thing you could mention would be the need to overcome internal IT reluctance to use FireFox/Mozilla and related kinds of programs. I got in trouble here with IT for installing and using Mozilla. "We don't support it," I was told. "I do," I said. I still use it but have to also run Microsoft Explorer just to pacify them. They don't seem to know or care about the advantages of Mozilla. Educating the IT people would be a huge help to people like me.

In addition, we have lots of trouble with our email system, which I think is a common problem with nonprofits. So if you could have an approved "consultant" who could trouble shoot on short notice and save the IT team here time and grief, they would probably go for it. You have to be careful because IT is very sensitive to criticism, even when folks on the other end of the tube aren't criticizing but just want help so they can get their work done.

Seems to me groups like FreeGeek want to provide pro bono services to nonprofits that don't match the needs of most nonprofits on a day to day basis. We don't really need new hardware in most cases. We could use software upgrades, but what we need more is quick response from a support team. If FreeGeek could offer that without offending internal IT, we would save more kids.

OK, this is Pete again... I think that the situation Dan describes is one that's outside the scope of what Collab (or any FG program) is designed to address. That said, it brings up a what seems like a good point - that there are organizations out there that don't lack for hardware or major software systems, but could use some tech support, or some help with incremental steps that move them gradually away from massive bloated commercial software.

Meeting such needs might require less in the way of hardware and technical knowhow, and more diplomacy and follow-through, than existing programs. Is there interest in moving Free Geek toward meeting this kind of need? Would it be redundant of what larger organizations (getfirefox, FSF, EFF) or private consulting companies already provide? If FG were in a position to do it better, would it matter if it were redundant?

I think offering reliable, quuick turnaround tech support for nonprofits has to be a longer term goal. I do think that we could get there, especially if we can make it pay for itself (or provide a small income stream). However, we'd only be setting ourselves up for a lot of stress and the NP up for a disappointment if we jumped into this too fast and too deep.

As tech support grows and becomes more of a regular program at FG, we can get there though, IMHO.

rfs 12:12, 19 Jan 2005 (PST)

longer-term CollabTech astrological contempulation

This is a piece of longer-term CollabTech astrological contempulation, and not yet a proposal.

Shall we consider directing the Contractors List and the (Financial) Grants Program to write grants for the development of software within FreeGeek whose purpose will be to help the nonprofit world switch to open source software and specifically Linux.

This sounds like a great idea! Seems like something that could give the Collab/NAP program the sense of identity it needs.

-Pete

In Nonprofit_Assistance_Program I suggested the NAP determine what software needed to exist or be understood to help nonprofits convert. Perhaps FreeGeek could hire programmers to create such software if

• a) it was determined that a few pieces of software could help large swathes of the nonprofit sphere, and
• b) that we could get funding to do so in such a way as to not re-create the Homestreet Debacle.

A grant to pay 1-3 programmers as staffpeople for the creation of software should be much easier to control than the 27 people of early Collab. In addition, having staff people who can program is rather essential, as Martin, Richard, and Vagrant have compellingly shown. Having a few more would allow other FreeGeek programming projects to grow.

-- Jeff