Long-term financial sustainability for Loomio
Alanna Irving PublicSeen by 415This continues to be a very rich and multifaceted discussion. A big thanks to everyone who has participated! Here’s a high-level summary so far (but this isn’t the end! please keep sharing your thoughts).
We asked the community for input about scalable, sustainable financial models aligned with our values and mission
We had a temperature check proposal where the vast majority of people affirmed the basic idea of some people paying to use the software - with some concerns raised about how that might be implemented in practice
We reiterated some basic facts about how Loomio is set up, to consider in the context of business models (with the software under AGPL3 and the company incorporated as a worker-owned cooperative social enterprise with a constitution that puts the social mission first).
Great questions were asked, great ideas were shared, and we had a wide-ranging discussion about not just Loomio’s situation, but the larger questions around funding large-scale mission-driven projects and open-source tools.
We shared details about our current financial situation and why we need to bring in resources
We explained the business model experiment we’re currently testing (asking people to self-select as commercial users, putting them on a free trial, and reaching out to learn from them), and showed the screens new users see.
Some highlights from the discussion
Ideas for revenue streams
“Pay as you can” where people can pay zero, or what they are able to.
Consulting and training around collaboration and engagement. We already do this work and enjoy a bit of income from it, but it’s not scalable in the same way a SaaS business model is, because it relies on people’s time directly.
Online facilitation services, and a network of facilitators that can help groups on Loomio to be effective. This is a potentially scalable idea, and we’re excited about it, too. But it takes quite a long time to build something like that up, and it still only scales to people’s time. We’re taking first steps to develop training materials now.
Straight up asking for donations. People in the community say they are willing to give. But overall, even the most successful donation campaigns only have moderate conversion rates and only turn into significant funds at very large scale. Running a campaign takes significant resources in itself. And we need to be wary of donor fatigue.
There are some innovative funding models out there we should look at, like Gittip, Gartipay, Patreon, Flattr, crowdfunding for specific costs (like features or servers), etc.
Relatively traditional SaaS model, freemium/premium. Need to find a way to make these successful models work that’s aligned with our values. There are some services - like custom domain names - that businesses care about a lot but that don’t affect others that much. However, we never want to deny core functionality to people just because they can’t pay. Ideas like “you have to pay to make your Loomio private” aren’t a good fit for us because we support, for example, activists in politically volatile situations who need private spaces to deliberate.
We should consider and learn from the business models of other free software projects, such as paid turnkey solutions for private servers, or help setting up your instance. Examples: Discourse, Github Enterprise, Wordpress.
Another alternative funding stream could be the Loomio API, with a decision-making engine supporting different UIs, embedding Loomio in other platforms, etc.
Philanthropic funding is a natural fit for our social mission vision, and we have already gratefully received grants and are on track to potentially get a large amount of grant funding down the line. Long term, Loomio needs a business model, even if we’re also supported philanthropically. So it’s part of our plan, but can’t be the whole answer.
Things to consider in implementing a business model for Loomio
Sharing stories and case studies might inspire people to pay even even they don’t strictly have to, to support others who can’t. The idea that you could “sponsor” groups doing great work through Loomio has appeal.
There are ways other than money to support the project, such as raising awareness to potential new users and growing the community. We could ask people to contribute in a range of ways, money being just one.
Transparency around Loomio’s finances is an important factor in people feeling good about supporting the project with money.
Many users here are very positive about their groups paying to use Loomio, since they get a lot of value from it. Some are able to right now, some aren’t, but many want to.
The main people who many expect to pay are those who use Loomio in a commercial context, but many community groups, NGOs, government, and other groups might be able to pay, too. And some people using Loomio in companies won’t be able to pay. It’s not black and white.
Users really want clarity about “how much does it cost” and it’s important that we do good messaging about whatever revenue model we try out.
We have to be careful what we incentivise and what we tax with the revenue model. If we make things we actually want to see more of less appealing by charging for them - like people inviting more users into their groups to collaborate - it could be counter productive. Many software companies focus on getting lots of users before nailing down the revenue stream for a reason.
A model that helps users who pay feel more like members than customers seems like a natural fit for a community-driven project like Loomio run by a worker co-op. Something inspired by a consumer co-op maybe. Involving users in decision-making about Loomio is an important value for us already (and we don’t want to limit that to paying users).
Maybe everyone should get messaging that sets an expectation that they will pay, but if they really can’t, they can opt for free access.
Making access and payment easy (recurring payments, robust user support, great user experience) is key in people feeling good about paying money.
It’s super important we constantly check back in with values and mission alignment - a really successful business financially that fails to achieve Loomio’s social mission and stick to its values is not a success in the sense we care about.
Utimately, successful businesses thrive based on the value they provide to customers, not based on their internal needs. Loomio wants to not only scale up itself, but hopefully generate surplus that can go toward supporting other aligned projects too.
People see the essential tension between needing revenue and wanting as many people as possible to use Loomio. A model where a small number of people pay more and feel good about it, so many more people can pay nothing, might be good. But we need to make sure we don’t then skew our focus toward only the needs of that small number of users who are paying.
Wider issues affecting this discussion
Finding “patient” scaling capital that’s values-aligned is a very common problem for a lot of social enterprises and cooperatives. Out there in the world, mission-driven financing is still under-developed. This is a problem we all should think about if we want more mission-driven ventures to succeed in our society.
We recognise some serious issues with mainstream venture capital funding. This also touches on really big issues with the capitalist system, centralised currency, and other deep problems in society (mostly out of scope for this particular discussion).
There’s discourse going on online about a fundamental shift of users understanding that if they don’t pay for the product, they are the product (such as on advertising-based social networks that sell user data). But no one really has the answers about that yet.
There is a big and diverse community of people out there working on various ideas in the space, including Snowdrift.coop, fair.coop, P2P Foundation and Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses, the Open Value Network, and many others.
Original Post
As we get closer to completing the massive six-month working bee that the generous support of the crowdfunding campaign enabled (on track for the end of November!), we’re thinking a lot about the long-term sustainability of the Loomio project.
We’re a social enterprise, meaning we place our social mission first: making it easy for anyone, anywhere to participate in decisions that affect them. Our software is open source, and helping all kinds of groups collaborate - not just those with money - has always been our vision. At the same time, we think we can best achieve that social mission if we have the resources to scale, and to keep improving Loomio.
We’re figuring out how to make Loomio financially self-sufficient, without resorting to pushing ads on people, selling user data, or other unfortunate business models that so many online tools use. Up to now, we’ve gotten money via donations, loans, and the team doing some consulting around collaboration/engagement - but these are not sustainable and scalable solutions. We’re committed to keeping Loomio free for noncommercial use for all the community groups, social movements, and other people using it to do great things in the world.
Right now we’re writing lots of grant applications and talking to social impact foundations who support tech-for-good projects like ours, so we can find some bridging funds to keep going while we figure out the business model. The funding landscape for social enterprise isn’t as developed as capital for nonprofits or for-profit companies, but we’re committed to pioneering in this space because we think that should change.
We’re finding out more about the many companies, government departments, and other formal organisations using Loomio in their work. Over the next couple of weeks we’re going to try out some ways of making it easy for “commercial” groups like these to pay a modest per-user subscription for using Loomio. We don’t want this to come as a shock, so we’re hosting this conversation with the community now.
If you’re part of a group that is using Loomio and would like to pay for it, we’d love to hear from you. Also, if you have any questions or suggestions about our revenue model, this is the place to share. Transparency and community input is incredibly important to us, and we deeply believe that the answers to complex questions like this are best discovered by listening to all the voices.
Here are some questions for you:
- How do you think Loomio should go about charging some users to use the software so others can use it for free?
- How can we communicate this commercial/non-commercial differentiation so that users can self-select effectively, and both types feel welcome and appreciated?
- Do you have any brilliant ideas about revenue models for Loomio? How would you go about making the project financially sustainable in a way that’s consistent with our values?
I suggest that each user pays.
As long as I've been on the internet I've only paid for access; aol was the only exception as it provided both. If i had to pay for loomio i just wouldn't use it. Www.tribe.net does similar in similar community.
some people should pay for using the hosted Loomio software, so those who can’t pay can use it for free.
I very much dislike the word "hosted" in the basic principle. Why limit the business model to hosted solutions only? There are more ways.
If a suitable and sustainable mix can be evolved where those who gain commercially from Loomio, assist in the free, or lower cost, of those in non commercial activities. Of course the delineation itself is difficult, but not impossible.
A good idea, details still need to be sorted but its only a Temp Check at the moment. But I think free access has to be given to the majority without them being restricted in anyway.
Statement is to vague. Some forms of how should pay and not I cannot agree with.
Collaboration is all about access. If economic constraint is a barrier this is a good solution to removing it.
I strongly support a B Corp style business model based on membership and/or services along the lines of Discourse or Ello. Quite honestly, I am currently much preferring discourse to loomio b/c of their model & am putting all my eggs in that basket.
I think some people paying is the best way for Loomio to achieve its mission, including supporting free use
Give groups the ability to host crowdfunding and billpay actions. Loomio keeps a varying portion of all monetary transations that occur in the Loomio ecosystem.
proposal by Todd Anderson Closed Tue 2 Dec 2014 9:24PM
Loomio is a tech for making collective decisions. Our collective buying power is immense. What if Loomio's decision making engine started letting us plug in actions that collect and distribute money? Personally, I'm planning on helping people crowdfund their own large group surf trips, and I'm planning on using Loomio with this in some way or form.
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 4 | 44 | 0 |    | |
| Abstain | 4 | 44 | 0 |   | |
| Disagree | 1 | 11 | 0 |  | |
| Block | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Not voted | 890 | 99 |           |
only if you accept bitcoin :)
Too early in the game for me to weigh in much on this aside from noting the dozen or so platforms already quite effective in doing crowd funding promotions for groups, projects & individuals.
There are dozen or so platforms already quite effective in doing crowd funding promotions for groups, projects & individuals so strongly disagree with people leveraging for fundraising directly.
Good point Justin, but various payment scenarios would be possible simply by hooking into other services via their APIs.
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented in practice. We have several steps to take before getting near this being feasible, like having plugin architecture. I like that people are thinking creatively about funding, though.
Note and share others comments that there are quite a few platforms for this sort of thing- I wouldn't be opposed to it other than just I wonder it might not work well/be excessive.
I'm vitally interested in both Loomio and crowdfunding, but I don't know enough yet about how well they could play together.
This would be such a cool way to fund Loomio, but unfortunately I think it's beyond us technically for the forseeable future.
Maybe in the future! It does seem pretty cool that groups would have a means to fundraise via Loomio.
I think we can find less complex and resource intensive - or at least more closely mission aligned means of revenue first though.
TL;dr
But my 2c is that it has to be a clear cut, like its a free only to non-profit groups, or a clear limitation like size of a group.
I'm questioning how the proposal is worded. "Should" implies a judgement. "Should" because.....?
In my mind, this anchors a polarity between those who 'have' and those who 'don't have'...which has little (if any) value for the purpose of raising funds.
Most everyone can afford to contribute something....at one time or another. (If not, no worries....other Loomio members will pick up the slack.)
I think the proposal would be better presented as:
Loomio will develop a revenue model that allows it's service to be used by everyone, including those who cannot (currently) afford to contribute to the service it provides.
Make private loomio's cost money. If what you have to say is private, it's probably something you can afford to make private.
We can make the bar low for grabbing a free license for private loomios.
Building on what @stevecoffman said, everyone can contribute something.
If no one in a Loomio group is willing to contribute anything to the broader community (what else is of value to contribute beside money?), then people are being locust, and the locust economy destroys many wonderful potential commons; ( http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ ) Most people won't be engaged enough to expect them to give a broader contribution, but when no one using a group has the value judgement that they should give back, what does that say about the group and the community being built?
Burning Man does a good job of setting the expectation that people will be contributing.
Especially this early on in the growth of Loomio, do you want to attract a core community who believe they should not pay anything at all to use Loomio and should not make any other contribution? Who just show up and take and don't give anything back? That's just the another version of the current extractive economy, not a new economy based on mutual respect and consideration.
Would suggest exploring @mitar's suggestion of Loomio becoming a 'multi stakeholder' (in this case, worker and user/shareholder) coop, with withdrawable but non-transferrable, par value shares attracting dividend expressed as a %age of surpluses, as and when, and at a rate to be decided by, the board once a year. Shareholders have one vote regardless of holding and elect user-members to the board; you can build in a worker board majority so no stalemate. Don't know how it would frame legally in NZ but happy to help elaborate.
That doesn't answer the ongoing revenue model question, obvs, but may address the question of capital for growth.
Hi team loomio!
Somewhere in the Enspiral-sphere I saw this thread go by, and I thought I would throw out a few thoughts -- in the hopes that they might be helpful.
I personally find that considering concrete pricing options can be helpful to tease out the specifics in terms of ... what exactly does it mean to charge people for this? I want to take care to respect that the Loomio community appears to have been incubating these thoughts for quite a while!! So these examples may not be revelations, but perhaps they are helpful :)
Somehow, the project that came to mind immediately when reading this thread was Discourse:
https://payments.discourse.org/buy/
I link to their pricing page -- but Discourse is a forum software, trying to increase the quality of conversations on the Internet.
What I thought was interesting for Loomio was:
*their software is open source. So you can set it up and host it.
but really, that's not a trivial thing. So they have an option where they do a one-time install ($99) on your own hosting (and they refer you to a low-cost and reliable provider)
and then they have hosting options based on scale ($200 / mo and $1000 / month presently.)
So I thought that was very interesting, because there's a way in which the software is open to everyone, and they provide access by either a one-time install fee, or an ongoing hosting + support fee, and there is always the DIY option.
I just thought, from a tangible perspective of price points, that is a neat 3-tiered way to offer access into a system, with some balance of universal access (it's open source) and clear costs for services provided. I also thought the one-time vs. ongoing was neat, again as different levels of access.
Now, there's totally a question of what it means to have a model that embodies Loomio's values. And really, I am going to assume Loomio has more of a radical inclusivity perspective than Discourse (though who knows!) and that there is a deep question around ... is open source close enough to open access? And if not, what does it take to provide a universal access option that still sits amidst a sustainable business model?
I will lastly say, that the idea of a concrete offer -- be it for ongoing hosting or a one-time install -- with a specific dollar amount, is I think very helpful to your customers. I think there are ways to be flexible around that -- but the reason I think they are a good idea is that for some people, they are so refreshingly legible. i say this because I know at both of the social enterprises I ran, communication around consensus-based decision making was a huge pain point. Huge! 7.0 on the Richter scale.
And I also came to be humbled by how at the end of the day, capital spent on people was by and away the biggest expense. So much money. At Parts & Crafts (http://www.partsandcrafts.org) we bought kids lasers and robots and art supplies and felt playfully extravagant and it didn't compare to a single person's salary. So I came to feel any process or tool that could help out was well, well worth it.
With that perspective in mind, I always found it so helpful to say -- "ah! yes! this project / group / tool will help us do our work, and that means we need to allocate $x dollars. Great! That's what it means to support them! Done!" and I would feel good about it and we would get back to the work at hand of our social enterprise.
So, you know, maybe this story is just preaching to the choir, but I've always thought it's so great to have a concrete starting point for "if you have the means, here's what it means to support our work" as opposed to making it a creative process on the part of the client, when I don't have clear vision into the operating costs and staffing costs of the company I'm buying from.
In my mind the trick is to make that offer with the right degree of flexibility so the value of radical inclusivity is still preserved.
My 4c :)
@sionwhellens Loomio is already a worker-owned cooperative, similar to the model you describe. There is already provision in the company constitution for User representation on the Board, and the possibility to issue shareholding to users in the future. In our current model, shareholding is about decision-making stakeholding, not monetary distributions.
@tekarihoken my interpretation of the current proposal is not in conflict with what you said. Exactly who will pay and who will not is a question we'll need to answer through real-world experimentation, and I agree with your concerns. The principle in question here is that we should ask some people to pay, while making the tool available for free to others who can't pay. If you agree with that overall principle, then please consider changing your position.
@nagle thanks for your thoughts - well said!
@bevanharrington love you take on capitalism and charitable sector, really appreciate a balancing voice in this discussion. I guess Loomio is aiming to create a business model that connects the best of business with the best of community organisations. In my experience that never happens in a polarizing either or dynamic but we're people are prepared to play in the spaces between
I've used Loomio since it's inception and I wouldn't want it to not be around. That might happen if users don't pay, as people have to eat. As long as there is a free and a low cost option, then I have no issue with Loomio charging. Getting someone to pay is also a form of validation of the usefulness of Loomio (I hope that doesn't sound too commercial).
Unsure anyone's yet pointed this out, but, ostensibly, and ironically or paradoxically, Loomio is looking for money within, and that works by, a fundamentally-undemocratic system.
So, even if Loomio secures this long-term sustainable funding, which is doubtful, it would still be in a fundamental conflict-of-interest with and within the system that would be feeding it, unless the system changes.
It seems like feeding a dog that you beat; like biting the hand that feeds you; like eating your cake and having it too; like shooting yourself in the foot. Stuff like that.
That's why I may have already suggested, and hereon, at least to the effect, if not outright, that Loomio needs to become its own pure-democratic Brick-and-Mortar Republic-- with its own money, land and people-- and, ideally, attempt to leverage other like-minded (Anarchist, Permaculturist, Deep Green Resistance, etc.) groups in this effort.
This is very important and is not to be taken lightly and is, presumably, ultimately what Loomio is about.
By remaining in this kind of digital/monetary/corrupt reality, I fear Loomio, perhaps along with so many others, will likely drop its own formative ball and disappear.
Nothing's working so far-- Transition, Permaculture, anarchists, Greenpeace, you name it.
Let's get it together, folks. The reality may be a bloody one-- if we're lucky and don't cause our own extinctions beforehand-- if we can't do this soon.
Lack of democracy appears to be intimately-tied to collapse of civilization and ecological support.
Just to add a little whipped cream and cherry to the bottom of my previous sundae:
“The superstructure of global capitalism is supported and protected by its institutions and ideas:
1.) Governments and their legal systems administer and regulate the capitalist process.
2.) The military, police, prison complex, and surveillance apparatus serve to enforce the capitalist process.
3.) The consumer culture only allows pro-market solutions.
These three pillars of the capitalist superstructure are very sophisticated and persuasive in diverting and co-opting discontent into forms that reinforce capitalism’s own institutions. Elections, corporate-funded nonprofits, nongovernmental organizations(NGO’s), community-based organizations(CBO’s), corporate-funded think tanks, etc. reinforce the system of capitalist authority and the illusion of democracy. They make people feel they are making a difference, when in fact the participants are tightening the bonds of their own oppression…” ~ xraymike on Stephanie McMillan:
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2014/02/07/stephanie-mcmillans-capitalism-must-die/
“Capitalism reflects nature & has value.” ~ Bevan Harrington
Bevan, many would disagree…
“Sacred Economics traces the history of money from ancient gift economies to modern capitalism, revealing how the money system has contributed to alienation, competition, and scarcity, destroyed community, and necessitated endless growth. Today, these trends have reached their extreme - but in the wake of their collapse, we may find great opportunity to transition to a more connected, ecological, and sustainable way of being.” ~ Description of book, Sacred Economics, by Charles Eisenstein
See also, ‘Checkmate: Why Capitalism Cannot Survive Global Warming’, by Terry Leahy
One would think @caelanmacintyre that it would be reasonable to discuss the business model of Loomio in the context of the current political and economic environment. Starting a violent revolution to overthrow the current global system seems like a rather extreme and difficult to execute solution to the sustainable cashflow issues.
“One would think caelanmacintyre that it would be reasonable to discuss the business model of Loomio in the context of the current political and economic environment.” ~ Mike Hargreaves
Which is what I am doing.
“Starting a violent revolution to overthrow the current global system seems like a rather extreme and difficult to execute solution to the sustainable cashflow issues.” ~ M.H.
The ‘current global system’ is already violent, extreme and ethically corrupt and creates its own violence/‘violent revolutions’ that it then tasks itself to treat, a la racket/conflict-of-interest.
If that’s what you want, then by all means, (continue to) work with it.
@caelanmacintyre - let's keep this relatively on topic. I think you'll find a lot of sympathy in this group for the problems we all face within the capitalist geopolitical landscape we currently inhabit, but I think solving ALL the problems of the world, and starting our own country, is out of scope for this particular discussion.
We're taking a small baby step in the bigger journey of addressing the real, huge issues you're talking about by building an open source software tool that we hope will be helpful to those who want to create a more fair an humanistic society through inclusive decision-making and collaboration, and a cooperative company driven by a strong social mission. The topic for discussion here is how do we support that effort financially within the current reality.
Facilitation Note
Diverse perspectives, including dissent and radical ideas, and in-depth thinking, are welcome here. However, please be mindful of how your communication choices will affect the overall inclusiveness of the discussion. If you find yourself making multiple consecutive long-form comments, it may be time to leave some space in the discussion for others to respond.
Intriguing conversation and a fantastic example of Loomio at work. Seeing what is, for me, the most important decision that Loomio will make being played out with the wider community and the contributions being made from so many different angles is amazing.
I probably (definitely!) have a more mainstream outlook on business models than many people in here. If you run a freemium model there should be no shame in offering features that people pay for. They shouldn't affect the outcomes for people just the efficiency in achieving them. So better management tools, paid facilitation services etc.
Having a paid premium product allows Loomio to stay focussed on its mission of getting people to participate in decisions. Because bigger organisations are going to need tools that will take a lot of work to build, but once they come on they will drive countless smaller groups on to the system.
@alanna
First, I fully appreciate your facilitation and agree about the issues of dominating a discussion. I am always concerned that my extroverted willingness to share my thoughts means less presence of useful thoughts from others more reserved. I love having others work with me to make sure all voices are heard.
However, this here points to a serious failing with Loomio's current format. The flat discussion style is horrid compared to threaded discussions. Flat discussions get dominated by such things as two people having extremely productive back and forth exchanges. Asking those people to stop their discussion or to move it elsewhere (where others will see it less if they are interested) are both inadequate solutions. The solution is to have threaded discussion that hide deeper levels until people choose to show them. Thus, discussions remain contextualized, productive discourse is encouraged, and it doesn't dominate anyone else.
I'm uncomfortable with how my very comment here is tangential and off-topic, and yet it's sincere valuable feedback, where adding an extra hassle for me to go post the comment elsewhere might reduce the amount of useful feedback shared by people. Threaded discussion style would fix all the awkwardness here.
@wolftune yes great point that has been discussed lots in the features thread. Feel free to start a discussion there because given we find a sustainable business approach we will definitely want to make the discussion thread tools richer and more responsive:)
Thanks @wolftune - I agree that there are improvements to make in Loomio's format to facilitate productive large-scale, in-depth discussions. In fact I just posted up an idea in the Feature Ideas subgroup about that. Feel free to jump in there, or post your own ideas as topics. Threaded discussions is a feature already on the roadmap for the near future.
Now, let's bring this particular discussion back on the topic of financial sustainability for Loomio.
I've not read allll these comments, but did do a Ctrl-F and haven't seen the word 'endowment' mentioned anywhere yet? The US university funding model has been pretty extraordinarily successful - and while you don't have any buildings that can be named after donors, there might be some sponsorship opportunities?
Loomio is a pretty great cause, and with enough networking and a good enough proof-of-concept, being used by 1000s, you might be able to find a wealthy tech billionnaire to drop $5-10m into an Loomio Foundation - thus limiting the donor's influence on the product's development, but nearly guaranteeing (with good financial management) a solid annual income. But then I have little idea how much cash you need!
I've been following this discussion/proposal from the beginning. I haven't yet voted because, for me, the wording of the proposal is off. I realize this is only a temp check and so it's not that big of a deal....but words are powerful and "should", in my experience, comes with a certain amount of judgement and control baggage. In a truly horizontal society, who has the right to tell anyone else what they "should" do? I don't understand it's use in this context. It seems unnecessary to me.
In my mind the proposal would resonate much more if it were written:
"Loomio will develop a revenue model that allows it’s service to be used by everyone, including those who cannot afford to contribute to the service it provides."
Because this discussion is likely to be pivotal in how the relationship plays out between those who can pay and those who can't....I think it's important to get the wording to match the feeling. For someone to tell me I "should" help someone else sort of takes any possible gratitude out of the equation.
Again, no big deal, but I think I will stand aside on this one.
Morning all!
Great discussions here, and am totally excited about the possibilities of participatory decision making via email for remote island communities that I've been a part of for decades.
Re: Fundraising. I haven't had time to read everything, and I don't know what the cost/benefit ratio is, but in an age of instant gratification, what about mobile donations?
This means signing up with evil corporates like Vodafone (joke!) but it's quick, simple and easy?
So, text 5555 to text $3 and "lift up Loomio" or something similar.
Another suggestion: since this is an open source non-profity type of social venture and all that jargony stuff, why not go the whole hog and open source your finances?
In some places, this is called radical transparency, and I am currently working on a platform and software neutral approach called Total Transparency Tools. This is where every transaction is instantly and publicly updated online so that donors can see their impact in real time.
Loomio is already well ahead of the curve in terms of technology, social approach, and in participatory decision making. So why not close the loop and make Loomio completely open in all facets, including finance?
This is what it would look like: a constantly updating ticker or data box at the top of the front page, giving the latest donations, income and spending, right next to another box, constantly updating number of groups, questions, comments etc etc.
Could watch that for hours!
One last one: match your software writers with communications writers - trumpet your successes, examine your problems, involve your audience with compelling stories. Not slick PR stuff, but raw stories, photos and videos in real time. Videos especially important for the US market.
“Funding
Loomio is developed in the libre software model. The main hosted service running the software doesn’t advertise. As a result, Loomio funds itself through contracts with government and business…
History
Loomio emerged from the Occupy movement…” ~ Wikipedia
“The Occupy movement is an international protest movement against social and economic inequality, its primary goal being to make the economic and political relations in all societies less vertically hierarchical and more flatly distributed… among the movement’s prime concerns deal with how large corporations and the global financial system control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy…” ~ Wikipedia
My emphases
I looked up Loomio on sourceforge.net for example and couldn’t find it. Why not?
What about something like the Bitcoin protocol under something like Dark Wallet?
If Loomio is FLOSS (of what kind?), presumably it is ‘somewhere out there’ where coders can easily get at it, maybe to in part fork/improve it (more quickly, etc.)?
Perhaps it depends in part on what Loomio devs want too. Do they want Loomio developed, say, the best it can be, or do they want ‘money’ for their efforts? What are their motivations?
Insofar as some of us may be interested in lateral hierarchy and pure democracy, it is suggested and illustrated with quotes that the contexts of both funding and charging appear in conflict.
And there is an expression I am reminded of, ‘the ends justify the means’. Well, do they? Do the Loomio devs in part acquire and leverage the ‘fiat currency of the corporatocracy’ without being co-opted/(disproportionately-)influenced/etc.?
Also does it– do baby steps– really matter at this point in time in an increasingly-unstable/overcomplex world of diminishing returns and/or are they too small too late?
“Now, let’s bring this particular discussion back on the topic of financial sustainability for Loomio.” ~ Alanna Krause
Financial sustainability, or actual sustainability?
In any case, I have taken valuable time out of my day for Loomio’s benefit, Alanna. I should consider charging/funding issues too. Can you afford me? ;)
(BTW, Occupy’s apparently been criticized for groupthink. A big juicy red thumbs down for that too. Because I can.)
But did the discussion ever really leave? I guess it depends on how much myopia or context we wish to inject, such as with regard to the value/sustainability of our efforts, and if we aren't pissing into the wind.
"We’re a social enterprise..." ~ Loomio
Comic: (NGO’s Are Cages)
http://stephaniemcmillan.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-02-14-pay-you.jpg
“Until you change how money works, you change nothing.” ~ Michael Ruppert (RIP, Mike)
@caelanmacintyre
Re: your questions about source and being Free/Libre/Open (FLO), Loomio has links on the site to the code hosted at Github, https://github.com/loomio/loomio
The code is under AGPLv3 (the best freedom-protecting license for web services!). Note that GitHub itself is non-FLO (I suggest Gitorious or self-hosted GitLab as better alternatives Loomio should consider at least mirroring at), but note that Sourceforge is a private for-profit business also, not a hub dedicated to FLO values. Sourceforge's Allura software is FLO but not everything at Sourceforge is FLO or in the community's interests (they have deceptive advertising on the site), nor is Sourceforge a reliable check about whether something is FLO.
I agree with your concerns and push to keep Loomio in line with its values, but I'm not formally affiliated, I'm just answering your question about the source.
@aaronwolf
Hi Aaron,
Thanks, and while Sourceforge was just an example, that's interesting and good to know about it and Github, respectively.
@joemitchell1 - We are actually in the pipeline for major funding along those lines from a Foundation, as well as building relationships with various philanthropic donors who believe in the social mission (we have already received some grant funding). It's definitely something we're continuing to follow up and part of the medium term plan. So I'm glad you're bringing it up, because you're right that it's a natural fit. However in the long term, we really want to find a business model that scales up with the success of the project, allows us true independence to always put the social mission and the needs of our users first, and hopefully even to generate a surplus and support other aligned projects. So philanthropic funding is great but probably not the whole answer. If you have ideas for people to talk to along these lines for the medium-term, please put us in touch!
@stevecoffman thanks for your thoughtful comments... I agree language is very important and we should consider it seriously. I don't think the proposal as stated should be written in stone and could evolve. However, what I feel is missing in your version is some simple straightforward statement that some people are going to be paying. Without that being super clear, the other half of the equation where people can use it for free and we can continue improving it, won't add up.
@jasonbrown I would love to do a lot more active transparency around financials. It's something I'm actually super passionate about (you might be interested in this story of another tool we're working on called Cobudget, which is all about radical financial transparency). Transparency is one of our core values, and in my view it's so, so much more than just making information available - we need to do the work to proactively make financial information accessible so people can meaningfully engage with it. In principle, I'm all for being extremely open. The simple truth is we haven't had the time and resources to do a proper job with it yet. We're radically transparent with budgeting and finance within the cooperative, but we need to extend that to the wider community.
@benjaminknight is going to be sharing some more info about our financial situation shortly, to resource this discussion further. He's currently in an airplane somewhere over the Pacific ocean, but once he's back on earth he should be getting to that shortly. I can say, in a general sense, that the Loomio project has been run extremely lean so far, and I would personally be happy to share financial details and stand by how we've spent the relatively modest resources we've had to work with so far. It's useful to keep in mind that it's not just software development we're talking about funding... it's everything that goes into a cooperative company and multifaceted project to effectively design and build the software and also bring it into the world and steward the values and community behind it.
The hope is the people with more money will continue to pay more because they have more, but in the US at least, they do not. Over time it moves to no one paying.
That is not true! I think that is true if user has to decide every month do donate or not. Then they get tired. But if you get users to setup automatic regular payment, this is not happening.
At least this is what I am observing for myself. If I configure regular payment (PayPal allows that, Gittip allows that, Flattr allows that) and I do not have to think about that, I am gladly paying for commons. But those projects for which I was unable to configure regular payment, sooner or later I just unsubscribed from their e-mails for donations because I was bothered too much. It went so far that I urged Creative Commons to implement regular donations as an option, and they did it, and now I can contribute small amounts regularly. (I believe that it is better for an organization to contribute small amounts because it is easier for it to plan, instead of yearly big donations.)
Another example is Gittip. Look at their graphs: https://gratipay.com/about/charts.html Look at weekly gifts. It does not look that there is a big decline over time.
I really think that the important part is to get people to donate regularly. Even if it is $1 per month. This then does not tire people out. People are tired not because of payment, but because they have to make decisions again and again.
Loomio should focus on building a whole SERVICE of really trained facilitators who work on the system specifically and charge a premium rate for dedicated facilitation. That will keep everyone on the site, it will be super-valuable, and it can be part of an expanded system overall.
That sounds very interesting idea. It could offer both jobs for many great people/facilitators in various our communities, where they are getting many skills and experience facilitating in various forms of (horizontal/direct) decision making. That would be also a nice way to bring those skills more into mainstream. It would be interesting to see small ecosystem of jobs being created around that. I see many community facilitators and how they are often doing some completely other things for their living.
Hey @wolftune thanks for your contributions. But maybe it's time to leave a bit more space in this discussion for other perspectives. When you find yourself making 50% of the comments on the entire page, it might be time to take a deep breath and do some listening :)