Crowdfunding critical infrastructure

Thu Jun 27 17:26:02 UTC 2019

Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
> > Adding an organization in front of that whose sole reason for existence is
> > to decide who gets what % of the money doesn't make a lot of sense, mostly
> > because it is just creating another layer of people who are then going to
> > feel entitled to be compensated for taking the time to decide who should be
> > compensated.

> I don't think anyone needs to be compensated for that. I think that you can
> certainly run a volunteer organization. The time required would be minimal
> enough that normally-employed folks could participate without issue in
> managing it.

I have founded and run three 501(c)3s.  Two of them are still on mission 17
and 26 years, respectively, after they were founded and with me no longer 
running them.  I have seen success, I have seen failure, I have the battle 
scars.

You are, sadly, wrong.  When your nonprofit scales up past a certain level
part time problems turn into full-time ones. You may get lucky and not be
required to scale up that far, but it is not wise to count on this.  

Usually you *will* hit that transition point. If you don't adapt to it,
your organization will fail.  Above that point, when you fail to
compensate your people adequately, you lose them.  They bail out or
they burn out.  Altrustic drive can postpone that reckoning, but not
prevent it.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>