<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/20/2012 10:54 AM, ace wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:505B5851.6050508@atlas.sk" type="cite">
I vote for funding projects that nobody wants to do for free, like
creating more tests. For that purpose even hundreds of $ here and
there
would be enough for the occasional volunteers.
aceman<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not sure how to put what I need to say in a way that won't
offend some people, but let me try.<br>
<br>
I've been heavily influenced by my exposure to microcredit in the
context of international development.<br>
<br>
It sounds like a really good idea to go to a poor village, and offer
loans to people at a really low rate (free or 10% interest per year)
so that poor people can have access to funding for their small
business ventures - and to be forgiving when some of them cannot
repay their loans. But unfortunately that is not a sustainable
model. What people have learned through bitter experience, is that
if you go and do that in a village, things seem great for a little
while, but eventually the project does not really meet the larger
need, and because it is unsustainable, has to be abandoned.<br>
<br>
But even worse - and this is the real point. By getting the village
used to the idea that loans should be free or low cost, anybody who
comes in later with a sustainable program is viewed as profiteers
out to exploit the poor. So by offering the unsustainable program,
not only have you failed to solve the problem, but you have spoiled
the chances for a real, sustainable program to take hold because
people have become accustomed to the idea that "ethical loan
programs" offer unsustainably low interest rates, and easy
forgiveness of failed loans. <i><b>You have done more harm than
good.</b></i> <br>
<br>
That is my fear of where we are headed with Thunderbird. I get the
sense that people believe that the really right thing to do is for
armies of people to come forward and offer to volunteer their
experience to make this thing really go. People who talk about
monetization are viewed with suspicion, as somehow not getting the
message that it is "not about money", it is supposed to be about
having fun and doing great things.<br>
<br>
But if that model is unable to meet the real need of what we all
hope to achieve, are you doing more harm than good by promoting the
"fun and great things" model of participation? Or asking for a few
hundred dollars, and think that is going to make a difference, when
I would guess that Mozilla has spent over $10,000,000 in the last
few years sustaining Thunderbird?<br>
<br>
I believe that the world needs a vibrant, open communication client,
and Thunderbird has the potential to be more than it is in that
space. If we accept an unsustainable model going forward, we cannot
achieve that. One of the biggest obstacles to achieving that is the
hope that some have that the "fun and doing great things" model,
along with a few hundred dollars thrown in here and there, is going
to lead to a vibrant product. I don't think it is. I believe that
the community needs to embrace monetization methods if we hope to
move forward. <i><b>If you embrace an unsustainable model, thereby
rejecting a valid sustainable model, you are doing more harm
than good.</b></i><br>
<br>
Now that may not be possible. I get the sense that Mozilla
management believes a) there is no valid monetization scheme for
Thunderbird, or at least one that would be acceptable to Mozilla, b)
Thunderbird is a product that follows an obsolete paradigm that
should be slowly retired, and c) monetization outside of a corporate
structure would present intractable problems of fairness that is
more risky than it is worth.<br>
<br>
They may well be right. But can we at least discuss it, without some
sense that we are taking the moral low road by discussing
monetization?<br>
<br>
:rkent<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>