[IAEP] Funding team?
sdaly.be at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 12:02:04 EDT 2011
Marketing is not fundraising.
In traditional FOSS projects, "marketing" really means "contributor
recruitment", which is not marketing either.
I've been asked in the past to organize translations, with the
argument that everything non-engineering is automatically marketing.
I agree 100% there should be a fundraising team, the lack of resources
is a critical problem for Sugar Labs.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM, <mokurai at earthtreasury.org> wrote:
> On Fri, August 12, 2011 12:49 am, Chris Leonard wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:30 PM, <mokurai at earthtreasury.org> wrote:
>>> I would like to propose that we create a funding team to pursue grant
>>> opportunities and partnerships for Sugar Labs, including Activity
>>> development, translation, documentation, teacher training materials, and
>>> digital content integrating software into lessons and explorations. To
>>> things started, I have created a temporary page with some suggestions.
>>> There are lots more.
>>> We need people to gather and document opportunities; grant writers; and
>>> proposals for what to fund.
>>> Some people think that this is still a bad time to ask for money, but I
>>> hear that corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash
>> The question I have is whether it is necessary to instantiate a new
>> "Team" or whether to add this as a function / focus area within the
>> Marketing Team.
>> It is my impression that one of the major expenditures of a FOSS
>> project is funding travel to events. The Marketing Team is already
>> engaged in tracking Sugar relevant events as well as being centrally
>> involved in the production of the sorts of materials that a
>> fundraising group would require for applications and presentations to
>> potential funders (e.g. media kits, etc.)
> That would be fine with me, if Marketing wants it. Anybody here from
> Marketing? However, I am concerned with funding Development, Localization,
> Translation, and possible contracts with governments for e-learning
> content, curriculum development, teacher training,...
> I am more concerned that we get people willing to follow up on commitments
> rather than with formal organization. So far, nobody has stepped up in
> reply to my suggestion, so this discussion is premature.
>> On the theory that ten teams of nine people are better and more stable
>> to turnover than thirty teams of three people, as well as being better
>> equipped for "surge capacity" when needed, what would you think of the
>> idea of developing your initiative(s) within the context of the
>> Marketing Team umbrella instead as a separate effort.
>> Obviously any effort representing Sugar Labs to funding sources (and
>> committing Sugar Labs to the contractual conditions of such funding
>> such as financial and other progress reporting and tracking
>> requirements) would need close coordination with the Oversight Board
>> and the SFC which would most likely act as the conduit through which
>> funding would be channeled.
> Again, this is premature. Of course we will liaise with our partners as
> required, but right now there is nothing to liaise over.
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> Edward Mokurai
> ج) Cherlin
> Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation.
> The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination.
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the IAEP