How about organizing a periodic fundraising "Pledge to Loomio" campaign...like public radio does in the US? Develop a budget for the next 6 or 12 months. Set a fixed window of time for the campaign, 3 to 4 weeks.
Have a progress indicator unobtrusively off to the side of each page to show timing and funds raised to date.
Pledges can be a one time or monthly donation option.
Somewhere explain what the funds will be directed towards (someone else mentioned transparency).
Not a hard sell situation. Make it fun. Offer rewards for certain donation levels (a Loomio t-shirt or coffee mug for $35 to $50)....or whatever. Be creative!
In some way show/describe the benefit Loomio has/is offering to its users around the world (who's using it, how, for what purpose, and where). Express the feeling sense of a Global Loomio Community working together towards developing a better world...."As together we choose...together it will be".
Describe your vision for the future of Loomio. Generate buy in for the vision.
Explain that the campaign is to keep the Loomio platform free of advertising, user data mining, etc.
Maybe crowd source the campaign...like you're kind of doing already. Delegate...spread the work around to reduce burnout. Ask for donations for the rewards from your users.

All the best...I love what you are doing...and would/will definitely donate.

I'd love to believe that this was possible. The concern is donor fatigue, especially as crowd-funding moves beyond the novelty phase.

The other aspect is staff time & commitment. Talking yesterday to an association which is on the brink because the sheer effort, time/energy of routine external funding apps etc. was eating up too much staff time. Meant they were not able to deliver core services effectively.

Perhaps there is also a psychological element of wishing to believe an idea is economically viable & truly sustainable. Always living on a 'handout' isn't a terribly life-affirming situation. Having someone committing to 'buy' your product feels much more definitive.

An oft repeated line at Startup Weekends is that if it is a great idea but doesn't make any money, it must be a Social Enterprise. We need to be able to change that mindset !

Or just use Gittip/Gratipay: https://gratipay.com/

Looks very similar idea to the NZ site, Givealittle.
http://fundraise.givealittle.co.nz/

Hi, I run a crowd-action app called HandStack that deals with the similar nature of things regarding pricing. We're thinking we'd be free for individuals and grassroots groups, and start charging nonprofits, political campaigns, universities, and religious groups by per volunteer per month. We might do a flat fee for a certain # of volunteers and apply a per volunteer per month fee beyond the flat fee. We're also in the midst of figuring this out, so let's brainstorm together..

We really appreciate everyone who donated to the crowdfunding campaign, and it was amazing to raise some money that way and be able to keep going this year. But it's not a sustainable model - looking at the amount of time and effort we put into the campaign, it was borderline if it was financially advantageous (it was definitely worth doing to raise our international profile, get in the media, make new connections, and engage our community, but you can't repeat that every year). Considering the market value of the programmers and consultants we have working on Loomio, it might have resulted in more money to just have them work other jobs to give back funds to Loomio (some cooperative members are doing that right now). But we don't want that - we want to work on Loomio!

One of the main reasons we decided to be a social enterprise instead of a non-profit or a loosely defined open source project is about scale - in order to really have positive social impact, we need to scale way up and make Loomio available to millions of people. To accomplish that, we can't keep going back for donations forever, unless we find a scalable way to do that.

Here's a great talk by Sue Gardner about the issue of scalability for social impact projects - there's capital out there to rocket amoral profit-driven ventures to scale, but not for mission-driven ones. This is an issue for all of us in society... we need to find a way to support validated social enterprises to scale, if we want to scale their positive impact. It's very interesting that this talk is by Sue, since she was the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia is perhaps the example of an open collaboration project that has managed to reach scale and massive impact through a donation model. But we need to find a way to support dozens more Wikipedias - it can't be the only one, or we all miss out.

Another interesting talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2VIoRYPZk68#t=415

I like Gratipay because it makes regular donations really easy. One click and it is done. I haven't seen something so simple. And you then can really do small amounts, but they then pile together. One hackerspace here in Oakland for example receives donations in this way: https://gratipay.com/sudoroom/ $500 per week.

So question, then. What are the barriers to Loomio marketing itself as an app for Android/iOS with the usual minimal (scaled to volume) payment?

Freemium model of limited users on free trial then more open/functionality on payment. If team members sign up individually, paying a few dollars (or equiv), shouldn't be too much of a barrier to participation?

Especially if follow-through on pending collaboration with the likes of airesis etc to add value with range of diverse toolbelt functionality.

Wikipedia has in the past posted a fundraising appeal by Jimmy Wales in a banner ad at the header of their webpage. Seems like setting up a similar ad for Loomio would be relatively simple. Could be an annual appeal that lasts a month or so.

"What if swiping your card on a food purchase also meant solving a social problem in Tonga or Timaru? Ever heard of the “double bottom line?” Welcome to the new world – a lateral way of viewing enterprise, humanity and everything in between."

Just received some promo material from the fine folks at Flint & Steel Magazine, launching Vol 2. Haven't read in detail yet, but sounds like it may have some connection to this topic?

http://flintandsteelmag.com/
http://www.maxim.org.nz/

What about non-monetary sustainability through solidarity economy? Developers do not need directly money, but housing, food, and other things.

Some stats about Wikipedia: in fiscal 2013-14, 2.5 million people donated $37 million (avg $14.80/person). Only 3% of Wikipedia users donate. Wikipedia has famously relentlessly optimised its banners and donation methods, requiring a decent investment of resources in itself.

If Loomio could achieve the same results as their wildly successful and highly optimised campaigns the first time we try banners asking for donations (and running the campaign cost us nothing), using the most generous statistics (total registered users, as opposed to active) we would bring in... $20,000. I mean, we would love to get $20,000, but that's not a sustainable solution.

Maybe someday when we have 100x as many users, that model could make sense. But how do you scale to that level without resources in the first place? I'm not knocking donations. In essence, since we'll always offer the core tool for free to those who can't pay, any payment will be a donation. But I think a fully through through SaaS revenue model that gives generous free access when needed is a very different concept than banner adds at the top asking for donations.

I'm not trying to shut down any lines of inquiry here, I'm just sharing some of the realities of the effects of scale.

Maybe useful: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Fundraising_mechanisms_for_activists

Interesting @mitar - maybe we could explore the idea of a membership model further. As a community-driven project, thinking of users as "members" more than "customers" might make sense.

I talked with some people interested in cooperatives, but with an interesting twist idea: that you combine worker and consumer cooperative: that buyers of your product are also "shareholders" or members and they also have a say in how you do that.

Maybe we could explore similar idea. At the end it is also a governance question: who makes decisions.

Another idea/suggestion.

Everyone can afford to pay something. If all new users get a free trial period after which they must pay a voluntary amount.

Comercial users are another matter. Those who use loomio for their paid work should contribute more but I imagine some of these people would use it for personal reasons too. If you put a price to host business zones it might discourage the business, unless perhaps they paid per member. But then how would they invite people from outside. Give them the ability to have short term guests? Starts to become more and more complex.

Perhaps commercial clients can have a coy branded version embedded into their existing office software systems. (With a discreet "Powered by Loomio" link)

Also, trending in Market Research is creation of brand orientated, online focus communities. Loomio could be a way to stage aspects of those conversations with committed brand loyal customers.

What about offering you'r expertise in online group decisions for companies that wan't an online collaborative space.
You could offer to install an instance of loomio, style it and deliver advice on how best to use the software to achieve great decisions-making between meetings.

Advice on how the organization get the best workflows, how they avoid death by mail-thread and so on.

Maybe combined with voluntary donations to create new functionality (What if you had a "make it happen" button on you trello list)

It is wonderful watching along in the conversation, both. Ideas for the wider activist and open source user community and also now reaching more into commercial users of Loomio. So many of the ideas are things we have thought of so it feels very reassuring and like we are on track with what we are thinking, but also challenges us to keep looking listening and creating new pathways. For commercial use I would be interested to hear what payment mechanisms people like the most when you do pay for software use, especially if you have an experience of that as part of a group? Some of the things we are interesting in are

1. License fee based on small large or huge group categories
2. License fee based on specific number of users
3. Perhaps based on level of activity
4. Or maybe more based on additional features like has been suggested, branding, customised feature set etc.

Hi, I should have gotten involved with Loomio long ago, but I'd been putting it off.

I'm co-founder of Snowdrift.coop — a site not yet operating but working specifically to address the precise issue of long-term sustainable funding for Free/Libre/Open projects. We have developed practical solutions to coordinate all the community of supporters to help projects like Loomio.

We want Loomio to join us as a project as soon as we get launched, which we hope to do by early 2015.

It's too much to get into here, but at https://snowdrift.coop we have discussed all the relevant issues and how our system will address them while running the whole platform as a multi-stakeholder cooperative.

I should add that I have thoughts about all the complex things everyone's discussing here, but it's a little hard to get into all at once. I really strongly discourage the use of commercial restrictions! It does not serve the Loomio community to exclude a business that may not have the resources to pay much just because they happen to be involved in commerce. It's much better to encourage both use and funding contributions. Of course, it makes sense to charge for personal service or for hosting expenses or custom features etc.

I really think the best answer is that we need to partner and keep working to get Snowdrift.coop going and then use it to fund Loomio.

Cheers,
Aaron

@vivienmaidaborn A few thoughts on factors affecting willingness to pay.

1. Uniqueness. If there are 20 others which do more/less the same, will just grab cheapest (free).

2. Fit of solution to problem. If yours is the one that does exactly what I want in a way no other does, much more prepared to pay for that.

eg. I pay for one service which I absolutely detest in every way (Meetup, shhuush!) Terrible service/UI/UE but only product that does what it does at affordable level. But I badmouth it at every opportunity!!

1. Scale of problem solved. If your solution solves a major issue & does it well, hell yeah I'll pay. Minor problem/annoyance, not so much.

2. Connectivity/Access/responsiveness. Huge bonus if I can connect with 'real' people in solving issues (with product usability etc).

Makes the connection/shared story much more personal. Bit like CSA (community supported agriculture) Will pay more than it's worth, just to help keep them going. (Commodifying 'Likes')

1. Structural issues matter eg. ease of payment system, no cascades of spam emails, language, upgrades etc.

eg. Really impressed with websites with unobtrusive 'Live Chat' "Anything we can help you with there, Sir/Madam?"

1. Trend towards min monthly charges (discount for longer) eases pain of payment & allows matching of cost to periods of peak use.

2. Data migration. A new one as data becomes more shareable. How easy can I get my data (eg transcripts) out, either for archival use or migration to other platforms.

3. Community. Nice when product helps create a sense of community.

@alanna Does Loomio have a projected budget for the next financial cycle? Are you comfortable putting out a ($) number that you would like to raise? It might help give some sense of what Loomio is working towards.

One story from my experience, working on one community-oriented project. We are offering free Internet to everybody as a community wireless network and community participates by sharing their Internet bandwidth and donating to the project to grow. Many people asked me why we don't make a business model where we would involve money at different aspects of it: people who are using the network would pay, people who are sharing Internet would get a share, network as whole would get income. That this would increase our market share and we would be able to spread further.

But what they are forgetting is that our 1% market share would not grow to the 30%, but it would be replaced by it. People who are currently contributing would go away, and other people would replace them, because values would be different.

I prefer to have only 1% market share with community who does not operate on money and even if we don't have income keeps the project running, instead of having a 30% market share and then immediately when we would have income issues people would leave because they would not be getting their share anymore.

So the question is what kind of community you would like to build. A paying community which also expects a lot and immediately stops paying if there are any issues, or a community which is more tolerant, because they feel as part of the project, just in a different role.

Interesting discussion as well: https://www.facebook.com/amandapalmer/photos/a.10150851738153375.413686.6565888374/10152547131558375/?type=1

Should we contact Michel Bauwens, he is researching this questions for a long time now.

Hi @mitar I work with Michel at the P2P Foundation and we'r e very interested in the possibility of Loomio/Enspiral being a pilot project for Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses. The Licenses are a means to and end, however, and that end is an ethical entrepreneurial coalition that is self sustaining. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-short-video-on-commons-based-reciprocity-licenses/2014/09/21

Another idea would be to have Loomio be a member of Fair.coop cc @enric2

http://www.shareable.net/blog/faircoop-using-cryptocurrency-to-bring-economic-justice-to-the-world

1. This is brainstorming.
2. I haven't read all the comments above. This makes me a terrible person. :)

A common revenue model I've seen for free software (and supporters of free software) is to have paid and supported turn-key solutions for private servers. If someone wants to run Loomio inside their business, then rather than having to maintain their own install, they can get one from Loomio. That may be on cloud-provided systems that Loomio provides, or on target machines of the client's choice. Github does exactly this with Github Enterprise ( https://enterprise.github.com/ ), and travis-ci is looking at doing the same.

I would suggest that Loomio becomes "free for public projects, paid for private ones" (which is very common in the FOSS-supporting space), but I don't think that fits Loomio's goals. However having paid plans for closed, commercial use feels like it's fine.

Paid customisations that mostly target businesses but otherwise don't affect core functionality are also a potential revenue source. The most obvious of these is domain name customisation; it's not hard to have someone pay a subscription to have their discussions under your-voice.well-established-business.com rather than on the loomio.org domain.

@staccotroncoso I'll be in touch.

I have seen a presentation about Open Value Network from Sensorica. And I think that this view fit very well to Loomio since it do not produce value directly but help people to produce value.

However if you are using crowdfunding or something like that please let the possibility to European people to pay in euros in order to avoid changing fees.

So much great thinking in this discussion! It's really heartening to know that there are so many people engaged in the same challenge as us - figuring out how to align sustainability and scale with building a public good.

I really like Quinn Norton's commentary on the controversy around Ello, which I think has some relevance here. She's articulating the compromised situation that taking traditional venture capital puts startups in, regardless of how good their intent might be in the beginning. This really drives home the importance of Loomio being able to fund itself properly, to maintain independence and stay aligned with the interests of the people using it, and to scale the social purpose.

My 2c.As @staccotroncoso mentions, I think commons-based reciprocity licenses try to get to the heart of the issue. I'm unsure how far away they are from succeeding though, and whether this will work for loomio in the short to medium term.
Currently, we can imagine a conversation with a prospective paying loomio client going something like this:

prospect: "I'm confused I can sign-up and use the hosted service for free but you're telling loomio costs how much per month"

loomio rep: " yes, loomio is open-source software, many groups use the service for free. We're asking your group to pay. Your payment helps keep the tool free for social good groups"

prospect: "oh, so Loomio is a charitable organisation? Give me the charity number so we can get a tax write-off"

loomio rep: "err..not exactly"

A CBRL would allow the the loomio to rep to say with confidence: "Yes, (as it says here on our license) [groups of status x] pay for the software (unless you contribute to the code)."
Of course, the tricky thing is deciding what makes a "group of status x". In the CBRL framework "commons oriented/mission-driven" groups use the software for free (but can donate) and others pay unless they contribute to the code. I can think of lots of edge-cases, and look forward the p2p foundation's work in this area.

cc @chelsearobinson, @vivienmaidaborn, @richarddbartlett

You can have the most perfect license in the world to make sure funds are handled properly once they arrive, but if people aren't pouring money into the system in the first place it doesn't much matter.

I find the discussion of licenses interesting, but I feel like it's kind of answering a tangential question. I actually think Loomio has a pretty robust, fair structure set up already, with the software under AGPL3 and the company incorporated as a worker-owned cooperative with a constitution that puts the social mission first. The worker-owners, the board, and everyone with core decision-making stakeholding will always consider the business model in service to the social mission, and in service to our community of users, not the other way around.

The question on my mind isn't "how do we set up the right structure and license?", it's "since we've got a pretty good structure and license, how should we go about asking people for money to resource scaling?" I don't think that having a better commons-based reciprocity license is going to make people magically throw money at us - we'll actually have to experiment with revenue models and see what works.

+1 to Alanna's comment with one qualification: I don't think the commons-based reciprocity license is better at all. I think it's a silly naive idea that completely misunderstands the situation with AGPL. AGPLv3 is a perfectly fine license that does not in any sense make it likely for Loomio's code to be exploited by evil capitalists. It's the right license, and whatever is imperfect about it, the commons-based reciprocity license is not a better solution.

The commons-based reciprocity license is grasping for a simple rule-based solution to a problem that is not a license problem. The problem is the one everyone is discussing here: how to have sustainable funding with commons-based projects. There's no risk of capital exploitation in the case of Loomio, and the vast majority of all capitalist exploitation of Free/Libre/Open software is done with permissive (aka push-over) licenses like MIT. The GPL family and AGPL in particular does a perfectly fine job of protecting the resource for the commons.

The commons-based reciprocity license idea is unlikely to achieve anything useful and will only cause problems due to incompatibility with the existing commons.

I don't think that a solution can be done just by Loomio, but only by wider movement. That's the problem. The current mainstream way of financing and funding has so many things: it is default for many, it is though in school, it has institutional support (banks, legal frameworks, lawyers understand it, incubators, etc.). No organism/system can survive on its own and the question is how to bootstrap an alternative. It is not by licenses, but by simple things. Sometimes just by having an one-click micro-donation button readily available. Sometimes by education: teaching why is important to donate. But mostly by getting friendly organizations to use Loomio, and getting some value of it, and then Loomio use something from those friendly organizations.

So instead of focusing on getting money from people outside the community, and being free for the community, maybe it should not be free for the community, and we should just ignore and not event spend energy on people outside. But that "not free" does not mean just paying in money, but also paying in some other forms.

Maybe an alternative currency is in place.

There's still value in this perspective: http://questioncopyright.org/how_to_free_your_work

Even though that's not software-focused.

@wolftune I think we're talking past each other.
I also think AGPL does a fine job of protecting the commons from exploitation. If by that you mean keeping control of the software in the commons and facilitating open-source contributions to the source code.

What it doesn't seem to do very well is facilitating those who can afford to pay for the software to do so as I outlined in my hypothetical sales example.

@alanna I don't view the CBRL as addressing structural problems, I see it as addressing sales problems. I also don't hold the question: "how do we set up the right structure..", and I'm fine with Loomio's structure and I don't see it as an impediment. The last paragraph in my last comment was highlighting a difficulty of categorising organisations into paying and not paying, something @vivienmaidaborn's comment hit on up thread. And something further developments of CBRL will have to address.

I don't think the intention of the CBRL is to "make sure funds are handled properly once they arrive" (?) but in fact to "[get more people] pouring money into the system". Nor do I think that it will "magically make people throw money at us". All I'm suggesting is it could make sales easier (I don't mean structurally easier, I mean conversationally easier). Interested to hear from someone who has tried to sell a subscription to loomio (or another FLOSS project) whether or not the fact that its freely available to whoever signs up, makes some organisations who can pay for it reluctant to do so.

In any case a good CBRL doesn't exist yet. But that doesn't mean licenses that designed for a different problem (allowing developers who work for big corporates to share code) will always be appropriate for the current problem (helping FLOSS businesses build a sustainable business model).

• keep Loomio simple and free to let community grow fast;
• make some charged plugins*;
• if you get popular enough, some organisations will want customization for their own purpose: sell them customization*;

*market study strongly adviced for charged services, to know what to develop or who to target

I like Benjamin Knight's link.. As a fellow community organizing startup (Benefit corporation) I have done the revenue calculation and it is easy for a company to survive & THRIVE if they can just charge $3 user/mo.

But there needs to be a bigger shift in users' perspective that they won't have to pay for what they use online.. and that is something that will take more than just a company.

MAYBE there could be an alliance of startups that charge users and promise not to ever sell user data. My startup would be glad to be one!

@simontegg I see your point that you want to draw capital resources into the commons rather than merely discriminate against capital. Fine.

So, with the CBRL idea, you say: "if you aren't contributing back value, you aren't allowed to even run this software / read this text". I guess I understand that it's theoretically possible that lots of capitalist organizations decide to host their own copies of Loomio, but I'm not sure how likely that is nor whether the CBRL would simply push them into using proprietary competitors versus paying Loomio. I guess that would indeed be a matter of real-world trials.

But I think Loomio's success is more threatened by direct competition from well-funded proprietary platforms that do similar things than by the vague idea of capitalists getting to freeride as Loomio users. Without the CBRL idea, Loomio can already choose to require fees for certain types of entities to use the loomio.org hosted site, so it's just about those capitalists bold enough to host their own copy of Loomio (even if we offer reasonable fees to use the main site). Stopping those capitalists specifically might just lead them to using the proprietary competition instead, and it serves the interests of the commons to put proprietary software projects out of business. For example, the more corporations that use GNU/Linux (even if they don't help contribute to its development), the worse for the strongest monopolists in the operating system field (Apple and Microsoft). It's a good thing for the commons to hurt Apple and Microsoft's businesses (and without helping any other proprietary operating system even!).

The main problem with CBRL idea is incompatibility. That's already the biggest problem the the CC NC clause. Severing the commons into little incompatible boxes is the worst thing we can do for the commons. If we want anything like copyleft at all, the number one priority is to all stick to the same compatible copyleft licenses, and that means AGPL today.

I'm seeing the CBRL idea more as a 'conversation piece' during sales for both the hosted site and for host-it-yourself (which will become a lot easier once the docker file is ready), and less of a hard restriction on who can download it (which is unenforceable anyway).

Perhaps it is possible to have a CBRL compatible with copyleft licenses?

All my stuff is AGPL BTW:)

The CBR (drop the L) idea is perfectly fine as a concept for a differentiated fee structure for a rivalrous service! Loomio could perfectly well say, "the code is available under AGPLv3, and the website offers pay-as-you-can service to everyone who themselves contributes to the commons actively while charging a stricter fee for capitalist businesses who want to use the site's services without substantial contributions in some form"

Or something like that. Make the fees reasonable, and businesses will be happy that they don't have to handle hosting and support and all. That's fully AGPL compatible practice.

There is no possible way a CBRL as a software license can be compatible with AGPL, so promoting such a license necessarily promotes a rift in the commons.

Hi everyone! I think all this commentary is valuable as it builds a wider picture for us. Forgive me for not having much insight into licenses but I tend to agree with Alanna that a lisence won't change how much many people say "yes I'll help you this month and every month after that!"

Lets look at personal experience --

I'd love to re-invite the question - are any of you involved in a commercial venture or large organisation which uses loomio, and from that experience what ideas might you have about how to clarify a payment model whilst still doing so in a values aligned way?

We've heard ideas about subscriptions, pay what you can, creating extra value like building "loomio pro" with extra

features e.g. data migration is a big one for users even now. Of these examples that have been shared (and those yet to be shared), which ways feel practical and inspiring?

@wolftune I agree with everything in your first paragraph. Its just the nitty gritty of distinguishing the two paying and non-paying groups

I'm also thinking of when the loomio docker file becomes available. If for-profit businesses perceive a self-hosted loomio to be more valuable than cloud-hosted (for data privacy reasons), and this option is easy, and free, then I don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest that the increased availability of this option might draw potentially paying customers away from a paid cloud-hosted service.

@chelsearobinson I don't imagine a discussion of licenses have come up in sales conversations. We're really all talking about the social norm of pay-what-you-can, and the best ways to promote that norm.

What I think comes up in sales conversations is the tension between a scarcity paradigm -"I'm paying for this because its scarce" and a pay-what-you-can "I'm paying for this because a believe in supporting the social mission". I'm pitching a CBRL as an 'anchor point' for the social norm of pay-what-yo-can and a 'way point' for clients passing between these two. "License fee" is one way of "clarify[ing] a payment model".

@wolftune I'm keen to learn more about the compatibility issues. That's somewhat off-topic so we can take this email if you'd like [simon] [at] [enspiral.com].

Yup @simontegg I totally hear you around finding a way to normalise a license fee. My comment was merely to stimulate more discussion from other people who may be watching this thread but not weighing in due to how technical I felt it was getting. Loving the way you are thinking, but keen to weave other threads! ;)

Hi. Been out of the Loomio-loop for a good long while, so hopefully these comments are not too obvious.

There are two types of answer to give to the original question; a general philosophical debate about SocEnt financing, and a pragmatic one for the specific case of Loomio. Answering the former would be nice, but answering the latter seems more relevant - what sustainable means varies with each specific case or instance.

So, pragmatically: how much do you need to make each month to be sustainable? What is the current user base? What is the current "commercial" user base. What is the projected growth of the user base, both commercial and non-commercial users? What is the projected growth of costs to be sustainable as Loomio scales?

If you can answer these you can work out what you need to charge and if that will fly.

In one sense sales is about highlighting the perception of value. Is Loomio adding real value to these commercial user groups? If so, talking with them will highlight how much that value is to them (eg how many hours of meetings are avoided per annum, plus better decisions made = time and money resources saved; or some other metric; do you have any measures like this?) When this is highlighted in the sales process it affects the willingness to pay and how reasonable the charge appears. (Do you have the capacity to talk to each major "commercial" user - is there an actual "Sales" role at Loomio currently? - and find out what the value is for them? Can this be automated via a questionnaire or something?)

Can some money be generated via targeting big "commercial" users to pay, some via pay as you like for all other orgs, plus some but not all from grants etc? What proportion of each becomes a sustainable model? etc.

At the two ends of pricing and sustainability are need/cost based pricing (how much does Loomio need to survive, perhaps even grow), and value based pricing (what is the value delivered by Loomio).

The enterprises that flourish usually have value based pricing, and a focus on upping the value while managing costs.

At almost any scale, opt-in payment schemes tend to leave groups underfunded for survival let alone growth. Alanna's analysis of Wikipedia was sobering. Wealthy parties like to pay nothing just like poor parties, and they are rarely generous without some acknowledgement, status or perk. Most of us are hit up to fund campaigns several times a day and are burned out.

The answers the Billy's questions will really help focus suggestions. If there are enough groups using it to support Loomio for just $10/month per group it's a very different picture from needing $100+/month per group.

Is there a minimum price, perhaps after a free trial, below which the group is basically saying there is no real value to Loomio and if you charge anything they would just go elsewhere for free?

Along those lines, for 'non-commercial use' the groups could be sponsored by someone in (or outside) the group through an opt-in, and highlight the people sponsoring the group with levels of sponsorship (bronze, silver, gold....) --- when the group isn't sponsored for a period I'd display "Unsponsored group - would you like to sponsor? (Sponsor)" as a nag screen at the top of the page, with suggested amounts. For commercial use, Basecamp has settled on free trial, then pay. If a commercial group cannot/will not pay, they will likely just use it as a "non-commercial user", which can be ignored for the time being.
The pricing, at a minimum, should be matched against costs and projected growth so Loomio is sustainable within 12 months.
Also to Billy's point -- getting someone to develop and do corporate sales could be a game changer (but those people are usually expensive)

@danielgoldman what do you mean about "Alanna’s analysis of Wikipedia was sobering. Wealthy parties like to pay nothing just like poor parties…"

I'm confused. Alanna was pointing out what I also know to be true: Wikipedia succeeds and thrives financially. Wikipedia isn't a "sobering" example of a problem. Wikipedia is a complete success financially, with an explicit focus on smaller donors because that aligns with their interests. They don't want big corporate donors.

The problem is that Wikipedia is the exception. The problem is that we don't have lots more similar cases.

Sue Gardner, in her talks, emphasizes how important it is to Wikipedia's focus on the general commons that they NOT be funded by the wealthiest parties, as that would inherently skew their focus.

Did I miss something or are you imposing your own interpretations on Alanna's and Sue's points where they were not present originally?

@wolftune - sloppy on my part not putting a break between the two comments - I think I was concurring with Alanna, did I miss her point?

Wikipedia thrives now because it has so many users (over 450 million). They raised about $37 million, or less than $0.10 US per user on the service (~$15 per person who actually donated, which includes some BIG benefactors http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors ).

It was sobering to me that Wikipedia get less than $0.10/user, 97% donate nothing, and that's even with a small number of large contributors. Assuming Loomio needed $1M/year, they would need 10,000,000 active users to breakeven.

Alanna's analysis was that Loomio would raise only $20,000 if their campaign was as effective as Wikipedia's AND all registered users on Loomio were active. The point is taking the same approach as Wikipedia, and living on user donations, wouldn't provide sufficient funds for Loomio until Loomio's user base was much larger (50x? 100x?). It is wise to assume Loomio would not be much better at raising donations than Wikimedia.

The point on the wealthy not wanting to pay relates to the 'pay what you can' approach. Their have been some shining examples of short term funding that way (such as Ford's free oil change, where people were asked to donate what they wanted to a charity instead, and ended up donating twice what the oil changes would have cost). But usually people burn out on paying. 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.

Pledge drives are different, and are event driven. There is much higher acceptance of that format, which in part depends on the nag and annoyance factor.

@danielgoldman I agree completely. WIkipedia's model is not going to work on smaller scales. I just want to be clear that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the small percentage of users donating — in the sense that it's never to Wikipedia's benefit to get rid of the non-donors and make them stop using the commons. Non-rivalrous is the term here: it means more people can use it and it doesn't take away from anyone else. No actions should be taken to reduce the userbase!

Now, I completely recognize the fact that the simple Wikipedia donation model fails for almost everyone else. I'm spending my life working on a solution to this precise problem via Snowdrift.coop

@wolftune Agreed - All services based on user generated content, like Wikipedia/YouTube/..., depend on the non-paying users. If it was like free-to-play games used to be, 1-10% would pay, 40% would contribute to the commons, and the rest just use the commons. Part of the equation is the non-paying users on the whole contributing something of value that someone else is paying for (advertisers, donors, businesses...).

Is a similar dynamic for Loomio possible or desirable?

@danielgoldman If you're asking whether Loomio should have a strong community of volunteers who work to make the system better, it seems obviously the answer is yes.

The big, broad vision (the mission of Snowdrift.coop in part) is to get people to stop funding proprietary stuff just as much as to fund FLO projects. If people didn't pay for proprietary stuff or buy extra consumer junk they didn't need but they get manipulated into via all the targetted-ad economy, that's leave more funding for a greater portion of people to fund FLO projects (which are the projects that actually deserve support).

Another interesting way would be through the Loomio API! I think their would be many ways a Loomio API could help organizations make their own decision-making app, or make a different UI that perfectly fit their website. People might also want to include an embeddable version of Loomio on their websites (by copying some copy/paste-ready html code to their site). All this could be free up to a number of requests per month, then charged per request or according to an appropriate subscription plan.

Also, like @pjf I think tailored solutions for private hosting can be something to consider.

Yet another thought: do you think any group would be willing to pay for facilitation services? Having a good facilitator that is external to the organization could help leading the decision making process. This could also include help on finding the right decision making process for a specific org...

Hope that helps, sorry if the ideas already emerged somewhere else, I've been out of the loop for some time now..

@nicolaswormser Facilitation services are a huge factor! No system and rules will ever replace the value of a real person functioning as facilitator.

I think that's a HUGE opportunity. I see two aspects:

1. the more Loomio.org has some level of site-wide moderation and other things that provide reliability and security and other help, the more entities will be happy to use Loomio's service instead of self-hosting, and a discriminatory pricing for entities using the site itself (i.e. charge more for for-profit non-cooperative businesses) is compatible with the AGPL license (whereas a different software license is a stupid idea that should be rejected).

2. 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.

I think Loomio offering no-charge (but please patronize us on Snowdrift.coop!) alongside a premium integrated facilitation service is the ultimate solution.

Hi everyone! This is fantastic thinking. Especially around the scale issue and the wikimedia example.

At loomio we do offer facilitator services- thats actually why my name in loomio includes (Loomio Helper). This brings in an average of $10,000 per client (who are typically large organisations in the public or community sector who are unconfident with technology and want to improve their collaboration skills). But the cost of delivering these services makes it difficult to scale. We've used this is tide us over in tough times but ultimately we believe loomio as an online tool creates value for organsiations too, often without help! So we're interested in working out what price point and payment structure might enable those orgs to show us how much they value the tool itself.

Hope that is helpful!

@chelsearobinson

I think the top priority in this direction should be adapting and scaling the facilitation services. Offer training in facilitation specifically using the platform. Have different levels of facilitation certification. Charge or ask for extra donations for people wanting more advanced training. Offer different levels of facilitators at different rates (expert facilitation costs more than student-level facilitation), and recruit facilitators around the world, maybe even connecting to physical facilitation in in-person meetings, but connect it all back to Loomio. Focus on being a platform that gets facilitators PAID, so the platform becomes a space for facilitators to work and organizations to pay for the services, and take a cut for the costs of running and developing the platform. Remember: independent facilitation is valuable, so it's valuable to connect orgs to facilitators who are NOT part of the org otherwise.

I really strongly believe that it is the wrong approach to try to figure out how to just make the system on its own sustainable as this piece of independent technology. That is competing in a super-cluttered market and fighting against the tide of how technology works. The best bet in my biased view is Snowdrift.coop for that side of things.

I think the core of Loomio needs to develop around the interaction of facilitation services and the site. That holds great promise to being an amazingly powerful holistic combination that will both mutually reinforce each other and build the user-base and more.

The best money these days comes from platforms that help real people connect and provide valuable services. All the platforms that just sit there and mostly work on their web development are funded by surveillance and ads and other unethical things.

Loomio as a facilitation platform connecting facilitators and orgs all using the site tools… seriously, this is the way to go. Let me make it personal: Snowdrift.coop doesn't really need Loomio's tools in part because we're building our own, but we intend to govern with facilitated consensus, and we'd TOTALLY use Loomio if it were part of a facilitation system with an actual independent facilitator (assuming we can afford it). I think there's real demand there and it can have many different scales and levels if designed well and marketed well.

One more follow-up thought: I could image building a large community of less-than-expert facilitators and have a pretty modest-price where you share a very modest amount with people who basically are hobbyists who care about facilitation. Give them an option to take no income at all and donate it to the platform entirely. But if they like, they could get a modest fee for their facilitation work. Then all sorts of groups could pay very modest rates or something to facilitate a decision, and you maximize the userbase. The premium level would be more professional facilitators assigned to work longer-term with particular groups…

Imagine companies saying, "hey, I've heard this works great, let's just go try Loomio with a basic facilitator for $50 trial for one simple decision, and see how it goes…"

Thank you Aaron :) love the energy and vision!

What do others see in this?

awesome discussion:) I couldn't even have imagined our Loomio community would have seen yoursleves as so much a part of solving the sustainability issue even a year ago, so thank you!
I have learnt that our current position of free to public good organisations is still totally right, that a combination of custom, added value services and plugins define the paying territory, and that there is a whole bunch of work going in building a better ecosystem for growing and scaling social impact business some of which we at Loomio will follow up and figure out how we fit in with.

@vivienmaidaborn

To be blunt about my view: I am fundamentally opposed to any of the software being proprietary, i.e. to the artificial restriction of certain features when they have no natural extra cost (artificially blocking them to compel payment). If Loomio builds proprietary software plug-ins, it will no longer qualify to use Snowdrift.coop as our mission is explicitly to help projects that don't put artificial restrictions on things. Development work is scarce and needs funding, and to a degree so does hosting, and service (like facilitation) is absolutely a rivalrous scarce resource. What we're trying to do is work out funding without resorting to artificially locking-down things that are naturally free (as in freedom). I really hope Loomio sticks to AGPL for all the software running the site. I strongly oppose proprietary plugins. Being Open Source also means the potential for volunteers to help with development of course. Don't sacrifice that or take undue advantage of the community's good will by making extra parts of things be proprietary. Thanks.

@aaronwolf Why is snowdrift.coop building its own tools rather than just using Loomio?

Would Snowdrift be willing to trial and pay Loomio for facilitation? It would have to cover a reasonable wage for the facilitator with something left over for Loomio.

As @chelsearobinson said, we do a lot of paid consulting and facilitation work for clients (online and offline). But after a few years of experience in this space, and gratefully using the funds we've earned from that work to put back into improving Loomio, we have found that it's ultimately not a scalable long-term solution for us. We can charge enough to cover people's time and put bit back into Loomio, but it's not scalable in the way that a SaaS business model is scalable.

We want millions of people to use Loomio, and we need a revenue model that supports that growth, and grows with that scale. Anything that only scales at the limitations of human hours of intervention (like consulting and facilitation) is not the whole answer.

I think that collaboration and decision-making is key online infrastructure, essential for the future of our society and democracy. I want it to be huge, and I want it to be held in the commons, not owned by proprietary advertising platform companies. I think Loomio can be an important part of that sea change, but to do that we need to dream at that scale.

@danielgoldman Snowdrift.coop started building its own tools before Loomio was fully launched. I have very mixed feelings about it all and have been looking for ways to integrate and to use Loomio. There are advantages to monolithic all-integrated development though. We are focusing right now mostly on things that do not directly overlap with Loomio. We don't want to compete mindlessly. But we also need systems that work with our overall structure, and it's not clear where Loomio will fit in at this time, although I hope to discuss it further.

Snowdrift.coop is a non-profit co-op that is currently not even launched and has no real budget at all. We will be running our own fund-drive to get launched. When we are operating, if we have enough of a budget to hire facilitation through Loomio, we would consider it (the co-op membership would decide, not me directly). At this time, we could not pay for that nor do we really need it immediately. These are long-term considerations.

@alanna SaaS business models are mostly unethical and in direct opposition to the commons. It's not that interesting to talk about how well they scale unless you want to accept or to be oblivious to the fundamental problems. The majority of SaaS businesses are entirely designed around gaining substantial power over the users. I hope you are not promoting that direction or coveting that business-model's success and power.

If you are interested in democracy, as you indicate, then you have to accept that your vision of the typical profitable SaaS website is a fundamentally non-democratic vision that is in direct opposition to the aims of a better commons. If Loomio is to achieve a sustainable income, it can't do it by simply copying the general mechanisms of SaaS without undermining the basic values.

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 :)

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.

We can charge enough to cover people's time and put bit back into Loomio, but it's not scalable in the way that a SaaS business model is scalable.

I would argue that one main component of Wikipedia is also its diverse and global community of Wikipedians. There are chapters all around the globe. In some way you could see this as educational and accreditation component.

It cannot scale centrally, but if you distribute, it can scale. But it requires different approach.

If what you have to say is private, it's probably something you can afford to make private.

I would caution against such thinking. There are many vulnerable communities who would benefit from using Loomio for their decision making, but cannot be public. They have members who receive threats, are stalked, and in general they have to control their online presence for various reasons.

In fact, being able to be public is a position of a privilege. Many oppressed cannot "afford" that.

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?

Be careful here. Endowments are invested and based on their returns you then get income. But then you open a question: how you are investing. Sadly it seems very hard to invest both socially responsible and with high returns (and it is hard to get people who know how to do that). We have many discussions about how our university (University of California) is investing, but not much changes. We are still investing into fossil fuels, Israel companies, etc. (Just few examples of what students find objectionable, without any endorsement of any of those issues.)

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.

Why not simply upload data to https://opencorporates.com/ ? The platform already exists, and it would be a great example for an organization to upload data regularly by itself. No need really to develop here new stuff. Just upload.

Some data is already there: https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/3971519

@alanna Thanks for your considerate response.

You wrote: "...what I feel is missing in your version [of the current proposal] is some simple straightforward statement that some people are going to be paying."

Ok, how about this... “Loomio will develop a revenue model that allows it’s service to be used by everyone. This model will request (or require?) support from those who can afford to pay for using it. Those who cannot afford to contribute to the service it provides will be allowed to use it for free”

Again, this is not a huge deal for me. Just enough to push my thumb to the side. :)

I think I have already written about it in a previous discussion in the loomio community group, but just in case here is the idea again: loomio should use crowdfunding of features like Piwik does ( http://crowdfunding.piwik.org/ ), and like some other open source projects also do. They detect a new feature they could develop, explain it and evaluate how much it would cost, and if they gather enough donation promises, they implement it and it profits to everyone.

So loomio users would see these projects, and think that it would really be cool if feature X was implemented so they could use it, and they give money. We can also imagine a less plutocratic version of it, by enabling a paid membership which gives a right to vote on the prioritization of features developed by the loomio team. I would love such a thing and it would give me much more motivation to give money to loomio than a classic donation (and a lot of "crowdfunding" campaigns around there give such ridiculous counterparts that they are in fact just donation campaigns, making fun of the donator by calling them crowdfunding).

The whole thing is about giving sense and concrete output to the money the users pay, and putting them in control of the evolution of loomio, and of how fast it will evolve.

Great ideas @quentingrimaud - I would really like to see financial contributions to Loomio feel more like membership than a transaction. I also want to facilitate people seeing the direct effects of their contributions.

Please let me share my thoughts on this topic:

I think Loomio has to works towards two goals that technically are into different directions: 1. Make money/at least don't make a loss to continue development; 2. Provide the product for free as widely as possible to help make the world a better place.

That implies that: the smaller the group of users who pay for it is, the more % of users can be serviced for free.

There is probably a risk in developing business models that tend to charge a large percentage of users, even if the amount is very small. It will most likely significantly prevent Loomio from growing and 'free' users will think that they're less important and limited.

I'd rater work out a model that focuses on charging larger amounts from fewer premium customers, without limiting any functionality for the free-of-charge users.

That could be achieved e.g. by offering premium support packages for hosted or self-hosted (closed) business environments. If you think a pricing of USD 500+ per year, you probably don't require a huge customer base to finance a full time team of 20 to 50.

There are plenty of very successful examples for that model around.

@christianmairoll I agree. If Loomio is truly going to enable people to make a positive difference in their communities than, free access is going to be very important.

If only small fraction of people pay, how you prevent them from influencing development much more than those who do not pay? Those who do not pay are in majority, so democratically they should have more say, but because those who are paying are those who fund us, it is hard to assure that.

That's why I like about Wikipedia, it tries to be responsible to all users directly (still not perfect), instead of smaller number of large funders.

I agree strongly with Mitar's comment. The goal is not to minimize the number of people who pay. Quite the opposite. We want as many people engaged and paying or volunteering as possible. The point is just to do so in a way that never excludes or excessively burdens people who cannot afford to chip in.

In summary, my views:

BAD ideas: pay for private, get just a few corporate sponsors, try to formalize some precise rule to discriminate certain entities, making exclusive proprietary plugins

GOOD ideas: make it as easy as possible for anyone to chip in, make it easy to provide ongoing sustaining donations, give clear guidance about how people should pay according to an honor system, focus on groups paying rather than each individual paying, provide special paid services like facilitation or customization…

That's not the complete list of either.

Anyway, as I've said, Snowdrift.coop will be a possibility once we launch, as long as Loomio stays completely FLO. And our mission is to maximize the number of patrons without resorting compelling funding through any artificial restrictions.

@mitar I don't think that payment must be any related with democratic vote power. Quite the opposite actually. Loomio is the community which will mostly consist of free users. That guarantees that the 'free' interests are kept.

Actually a high number of free users are the biggest value of the Loomio project as they represent the advertising for any paid things, however they may look like.

If most users are charged (no matter how small the amount), the project will most likely not get off the ground soon. Think big, imagine several million free users. Only a very very small fraction of paid 'conversion' is required to make a sustainable business then.

But near 100% paid of just a few thousand users will probably not make a growing business and the day will come when another 'everything-free' clone will appear on the market and Loomio is dead.

Strongly recommended lecture on that topic: "Free" from Chris Anderson.

@Christian Mairoll: I am not saying that it must be, but that it will confuse incentives. Yes, in perfect world one would be able to not be influenced by those who are paying, but in reality it is hard to get out of your head that somebody might not pay anymore because. What you do if all paying people (minority) want a feature to which all non paying people (majority) object.

@mitar the answer would be to charge for the feature.

@mikehargreaves Exactly. And that would not be democratic because it would mean that minority had their way just because they can afford it.

@mitar if there were always an element of self-selection, would that address your concern? For me it's more about setting a culture of paying, while allowing people to self-select as needing to use it for free as per their own judgement. We're starting to experiment with this stuff and that's something we're testing (asking people to tell us whether they can pay or not and going with that).

Thanks so much to everyone who’s taken the time to give input into this so far - many many good ideas, critical perspectives and fresh thoughts coming up.

I thought it might be useful to give some more context about the level of resourcing that it currently takes to run Loomio in a bootstrapping scenario, and to give an idea of the longer-term social impact aims of the project and the level of resourcing it’s likely to take.

Right now it costs about $20k per month to run Loomio, in a bare-bones very lean scenario. This covers the core costs (servers, rent), and provides for the bare minimum of development with a tiny team. Currently, our developers are paid about ⅕ of the standard rate for software engineers at their skill level.

Thankfully, we’re in a unique position, having such a committed core team where positive impact is the primary motivator for everyone involved. But we’re also conscious that it’s not sustainable to stay in a situation where people have to make such a significant financial sacrifice in order to work on it. As well, we’re conscious of the lack of diversity that can result from that situation - i.e. it’s very easy to end up with a team that’s exclusively made up of young middle-class people, because anyone that needs to support a family or doesn’t have other means of support just isn’t able to work on the project.

It’s also clear that the positive potential of Loomio is currently constrained by resource limitations. Seeing 40,000 people over the last couple of years join a platform for inclusive decision-making has been amazing, but there’s so much more potential there. To get Loomio into a state where it’s realistic for us to support not just tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people, and beyond. Given our core purpose, to make it easy for anyone anywhere to participate in decisions that affect them, our long-term goal is to make Loomio so accessible that collaborative decision-making becomes the norm. We want to have the technical capacity to respond quickly to user needs and keep our app development as adaptive as possible. The current state of Loomio is very much a first step, and there’s so much more we can do to really deliver on its potential.

The practical consequence is that we’re hesitant to do any sort of public-facing push because we’re worried about not having the capacity to support a big increase in user numbers. This is going to require doubling our team over the next 6-12 months, and transitioning to paying staff something closer to a reasonable wage. Realistically, this will at least quadruple our monthly costs in the next period - so the level of resourcing we’re talking about will be in the ballpark of $80k per month to transition to the next phase, and will increase as we grow, to beyond $150k per month as we start to scale.

Another part of this is that we have the opportunity to undertake social impact partnerships - some of the projects in motion are participatory budgeting in schools, integration with a wireless mesh networking toolkit so Loomio can run on resilient infrastructure, and a research project to assess the efficacy of collaborative decision-making. We want to not just provide digital technology, but also on-the-ground support and training in the cultural practices that enable communities to do collaborative governance effectively. All of this work takes budget.

Hopefully this gives some more context to why we take resourcing this project so seriously. We’re not interested in scale for the sake of scale - but in this case there’s real potential for massively increasing the scope of concrete positive impact Loomio can have, and a responsibility to do what we can to deliver on it.

Wow - nice summary @benjaminknight - thanks for sharing.

Wow this is such a rich thread, amazing to have so many people engaged in helping us work through this challenge!

While it’s useful to zoom right out and consider the implications of different legal structures, software licenses, and high-level business models, the work I’m engaged in right now is zoomed right in to the level of ‘what should the text on the button say?’

This week we’ve deployed an experiment in the ‘pay for use’ category, where we’ve changed the signup experience for new visitors who want to start a group. I wanted to resource this conversation by sharing a bit of detail about what’s involved in this work.

To start with, here’s the baseline data for the period Sept 12th – Oct 27th, before we started the experiment:

• 24.4k visits to the homepage
• 3,776 visits to the Try It page, which directs people to either start a group, join the Loomio Community, or explore public groups
• 1,116 visits to the Group Request page: the form that people use to create their first Loomio group
• 476 people successfully complete that form and start their group

Yesterday (Oct 28th) we changed the sign-up process: removing the “Try it” page, and adding a splash screen after the group request form, that tells commercial users they can have a free trial, and then will be asked to pay $2 per person per month.

Here’s a snapshot of the data, one day into the experiment:

• 1,468 visits to the homepage
• 152 visits to the Group Request page
• 34 people fill in the form and see the splash screen
• 30 of them click through the splash screen and start their new group (6 commercial, 24 noncommercial)

That’s a tiny dataset, so it is too early to draw conclusions, but we can already make useful inferences. For instance, before the experiment started, the baseline conversion rate was 1.95% (24,400 visits to the homepage led to 476 new groups), and so far during the experiment the rate is 2.04% (1468 visits, 30 groups). This tells me at least that the new signup process hasn’t massively confused people (phewf!).

The next job is to take these new commercial signups, and figure out how we can support them to successfully activate their groups. We want them to love Loomio by the time they get to the end of their 30-day free trial, so they’ll feel great about paying a subscription fee. Initially this is a labour-intensive manual process, but once we’ve learned more about what support really helps, we’ll be able to automate it.

I hope this little snapshot is useful! I’m really grateful to everyone for their input so far, please do keep asking questions and helping us think through this complex challenge :)

@richarddbartlett Thanks for the run-down there. Re: these details, I agree that providing a guide like "As a commercial entity, you are expected to contribute $2 per group member" is great but I encourage making it such that both groups who feel this is burdensome and groups who can afford much more can make their own best judgments. Perhaps a "minimum rate, unless you are in poverty — paid by honor system" sort of thing (implies that this isn't a voluntary donation — you are supposed to pay unless you can't) along with a "suggested regular rate" that's a bit higher…

I'm trying to get at making it clear that people shouldn't hesitate to use the system because of cost but that they should feel obliged to pay when they can rather than merely requested. That balance is hard to get at.

@benjaminknight @richarddbartlett Thanks to you both for sharing the numbers with us. It really helps me to connect with you...and the community you (we?) are creating.
Loomio Love! :)

FYI here are the actual screens that get shown to people as they sign up:

Non-commercial users:

Commercial users:

@wolftune what do you think of the language here (bearing in mind it's a first iteration)?

@richarddbartlett Those are great initial pages! I would remove the "priority" from "priority support". There's no need to claim that paying organizations get official priority. You can just say "full support" or something like that maybe "dedicated support".

I personally oppose the term "cloud" here and think you should just omit that.

What's "custom privacy controls"? Are you saying community non-profit co-ops, activists etc. will be artificially blocked from having privacy controls that are otherwise available in the software?

You should figure out whether "discounts for large groups" is actually helping any conversion because you'd be better off not offering such discounts.

Although it's a great start, my inclination is to question the per-person approach to funding. It's not extra cost to add someone who just votes once a month or something versus some people who are super active. There may be other ways to qualify. I personally favor the income-based approach, i.e. "$X for entities with income in the range of $Y" and so on.

No easy answers here though. I think you've got a great start.

Really good - this is so much clearer to me that all the dialogue (self note!)

Suggestions -

After: It’s our gift to you.

You could run: Any contribution you pay becomes your gift to others.

Or something like that, a prompt; it felt hanging.

Also I would make it a 60 day trial – even with a passionate ambassador on site it needs that long to bed in. Agree about dropping 'priority'. Challenge everything. Great work all :)

Seems important to value add (+income stream) for orgs/companies etc beyond just provision of tools alone.

Customised consultations to guide development of 'best practices' within org structure to encourage and enable fulsome authentic engagement with all members.

Important to remember this may be quite a new concept for many potential users. (Corporate culture change etc) May benefit from face-2-face enunciation for values clarification etc. Opens itself to fostering mentor relationships (& consult fees for those who can afford it)

Key point of any sales process which (strangely) is often overlooked. Close the sale!! Ask for the money (cash/eftpos/bitcoin etc) Don't Ask, Don't Get (often)

Great feedback thanks everyone!

I'll add something else here which may be of interest re perspective & orientation of terms etc. (which way are you facing?)

In 2005, in Kaikoura (coastal town, east coast of South Island NZ) a community consultation process (hui) was began to develop a marine management plan.

Aim was to seek consensus with wide array of users, including recreational, commercial, and the traditional Maori owners. A huge task which few communities have succeeded in without friction and ill feeling.

The methodology of this project was conducted was quite unique and IMHO, vastly under-reported. The consultative processes used were awesome and ultimately, very successful, resulting in Te Tai o Marokura Marine Management Bill (became law, August 2014). Full history can be found among the pages of

http://www.teamkorowai.org.nz/

I've watched this process for many years. (Sorry, for rambling, I am getting to the point now!)

One of the amazing nomenclature shifts used in the process was as follows: Changing access to certain areas/times etc meant some folk being restricted in perceived 'rights' or freedoms to which they were accustomed. (fishing etc)

Naturally, this could have been a very contentious situation, dividing a community many ways. However, in a stroke of pure genius, these losses, were portrayed as Gifting.

People readily accepted giving up unfettered access, when explained in terms of being, not a loss but their gifting to future generations. (for ecological abundance & sustainability etc)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i22Im_TyLU

Gifting for Abundance: http://www.teamkorowai.org.nz/docs/Te_Korowai_Strategy_August_2011.pdf

Sorry to be long-winded. Intended outcome is this. Charging fees for some users may perhaps be better expressed as Gifting towards both the future development of equitable Social Discourse (Loomio) and to those communities who may not yet be able to afford payments now.

Hope that helps......

@jgrey thanks for sharing that inspiring story! We have often talked about conceptualising Loomio as part of the Gift Economy, and about coming from a place of abundance. Those concepts really resonate. @chelsearobinson and others will probably be interested to learn about what worked in Kaikoura as well in terms of facilitating good public engagement.

@stevecoffman

It really helps me to connect with you…and the community you (we?) are creating.
Loomio Love! :)

WE WE WE WE !!!! <3

I've followed this discussion with interest team. I represent an organization that uses Loomio. Although we are a not-for-profit (read social profit) we readily recognize the need to purchase the tools required that help us to achieve our purpose (flourishing lives for people with lived experience of mental illness). One of the tools that we are having increasing success with and benefit from is Loomio and for as long as it remains a critical part of our business tools we will continue to be happy to purchase it. Should this contribute to allowing other entities to access it without payment (as their circumstances don't allow) then that is simply value-added from our perspective.

Thanks for chiming in @rossphillips - as one of the organisations that has contributed financially to Loomio, you have a really important perspective. I'm so glad that Loomio is providing value to your organisation and aiding you in your important work in the community! I hope you know that your financial support of Loomio has been extremely appreciated.

This is exactly the dynamic I hope to set up in our business model - the people who pay feel great about the value they receive and about helping give access to Loomio to others who can't pay, and the funds go to improving Loomio for everyone.

This 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.

@alanna A marvelous summary!

One minor clarification: you wrote "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."

First, Gittip is now Gratipay (they just changed names). They are not so innovative, it's just plain old regular-donation, same as been done for generations, but it's both a convenient option for that and one that's relatively community-oriented. Patreon offers a per-release-of-something model but is otherwise the same as Gratipay but totally proprietary, higher-fee, and not so community oriented. Flattr will never offer enough to actually cover costs, it's just minor tips. Of those, Gratipay is clearly the more aligned better option. But as it isn't a new model, you really could just bypass it. Having people directly fund you with a weekly or monthly amount is the same thing as using Gratipay. Gratipay offers little beyond that to make any difference.

There are additional options for bounties such as FreedomSponsors.org (my favorite of the options) — that's for people saying they'll pay for particular features. And there's many competitors in that space, but it's never shown to be a truly sustainable substantial approach although it's been tried over and over for years. I do think including it is a fine idea, but don't expect too much.

At Snowdrift.coop, we reviewed all these sites and options, so you can review our research at https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/othercrowdfunding

Of course, I still believe that Snowdrift.coop offers the truly innovative solution that could be the entire answer here, but, as I've said, we're not operational yet. We hope to have our early beta launch within the next few months.

Awesome summary @alanna.... Thank you!

The item that resonates most with me:

"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)."

I think some version of a co-op would be ideal. Owner/members are much more likely to have a vested interest in supporting Loomio, particularly if (we) are included in visioning, decision-making, development, etc.

We have a very successful food co-op where I live. Anyone can shop there but members get to vote...(and there are a few regular discounts for members that make it very attractive to sign up). The one time fee to join can be spread out over a years time, making payment very easy.

Perhaps there could be other non-monetary ways for someone to contribute (pay) for their membership, if they really want to be a member and really can't afford to pay $.
(This is probably a really bad idea...but it would be great if there was another option that didn't rely on $.)

I realize a membership fee alone would not raise sufficient funds to support Loomio, but it could be an integral piece in raising capitol necessary to scale. And, in my mind, the loyalty that comes with the we own it factor would be huge.

As together we choose....

Hmm, i think I'm going to remove myself from this discussion. . I hope you all checked out tribe.net ( http://tribe.net ) and their model. It is the only one where pay or not pay isn't an issue in the energy of the collective i have ever found on the internet. IMHO, this discussion has already shifted into a tiered mindset which doesn't bode well for stated intentions and their implementation to achieve their end. I don't have time to pick out the details and it just may be a misunderstanding of strangers. yet, at face value just reading the thread i find the pervasiveness in the mindset growing. Good luck.

@stevecoffman "I think some version of a co-op would be ideal."

Mondragon Worker Corporation Model, perhaps?

Putting the 'Co' back into 'Corporation'. [Co-oporation?]

"Corporation and federation of worker cooperatives"

A loose coalition of collectives & co-ops with some shared fundamental principles & values.

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/eng/co-operative-experience/our-principles/

(Cited as example of 'best practice' rather than suggestion of complete adoption by Loomio)

@elaineclermont this is from tribe.net:

Our intention is to derive revenue from commercial uses such as job postings.

I don't think this is a model that would make sense for Loomio.

. . .

@alanna ... that's great news about the radical or 'extreme' transparency options. However when I tried to click https://www.loomio.org/d/www.mixprize.org/story/collaborative-funding-dissolve-authority-empower-everyone-and-crowdsource-smarter-transparent there was a broken link error.

But I did find what I presume to be a copy?
http://www.managementexchange.com/story/collaborative-funding-dissolve-authority-empower-everyone-and-crowdsource-smarter-transparent

Some brave stuff there, particularly the emergent management groups firing themselves. And the different "bucket" categories embraces different types of funding approaches - wunderbar!

Sometimes I've found myself in the position of helping advocacy efforts and ending up being asked "why don't you do it?"

Hopefully this move to Loomio will encourage others to set discussions and proposals. And that will lead into discussions around budget transparency.

Fingers, toes, eyes crossed , )

. . .

This is an interesting discussion. You talk about funding. Lets talk about value.

What is the value of Loomio? Here is a few aspects I see.

There are, I am certain, hundreds of potential use cases we all know about. Loomio is an alternative to each of these. Here are a few, top of mind.
- Important decisions get delayed because we can't find the time to get together to talk it out / because we can't schedule everyone across 10 time zones/ because it is too expensive to get everyone together.
- The introverts in the group, who are among our best thinkers, never have the time to put in a word edge-wise.
- The conference room is booked until 3 pm - we have to make a decision (even if that means we have to decide before having considered all the important aspects)
- Why discuss this - the boss will simply push through his/her own decision...
- We went down one rabbit hole in our discussion, but we forgot to look at other important aspects.
- We meet and discuss, we "talk about", but we never get to a decision.
- I don't want people sitting on the fence about this. Either you support this decision, or you don't for good reason. Lets hear it. Let's get this right, and be a team.
- Okay, our small team is not representative of our stakeholders, and we need their input. They need to have a voice. How do we do that?
- We want feedback from our top customers/suppliers/designers about next year's roll out.
- etc.

Each of these use cases has a huge associated cost of NOT using Loomio. That cost is easy to estimate in situation, and could be used to support a strong value proposition.

In other words, not using Loomio costs the organization money. So the use of Loomio should easily be funded within current operating expenses.

For-profit and government organizations have operational budgets - there is no reason they should not be paying. But they won't if they can get away with it. That is because all their metrics are oriented on reducing costs and/or maximizing revenue. Therefore, you cannot base your business model on people "offering to pay".

So, offer organizations/governments some form of branding using sub-domain redirection and a logo so the UI looks somewhat like them, and sell them a yearly subscription, paid up front, based on the number of employees. Discount the first year to get them to bite, but don't sell it by the month. Changing organizational culture takes time, and one month isn't enough. It'll get hard before it gets better, so you don't want to prompt a renewal decision while it is still hard.

The subscription would include a few hours of consulting up front to launch the "Loomio program" and a review after 3 and 9 months to make sure they are not making gross mistakes, which they will. The metric is the number of successful proposals by time period. They should have more of them month by month, otherwise, you won't be able to renew the subscription at the end of the year.

The other purpose of the 9th month review is to renew the subscription for another year or more.

At both reviews, ask for referrals to other potential organizations they know about. If they do, you could offer them a supplementary discount.

Organizations love to have third parties write stories that present them in a good light. So publish success stories about organizations "Doing Loomio" and accomplishing great things in employee engagement and innovation, devising and deploying great strategies, implementing a bottom-up flow to balance top-down decision making flows, etc.

Within the organizational subscription space, have gamification metrics that recognize employees that contribute a lot, in the various ways that they can (new topics, new proposals, voting on proposals, showing up and posting comments, liking and getting likes, etc. This creates "reputation" that can be tied into the appraisal and reward process.

If this helps keep Loomio free for non-profits, individuals and community groups that create great things out of nothing, that would be a good thing.

@jeandaniel I love your articulation of some of the value Loomio generates — thanks!

Yes @jeandaniel I really loved the turning the conversation on its head you did just then, seeking value not funding. One thing that makes me value Loomio is seeking shifts in my own perspective on an issue and also seeing the perspective of a whole group shift and develop.

You're welcome!

In terms of value, Loomio stops just short of being able to deal with complex or wicked problems - problems that require multiple pathways of strategy to be developed by a variety of stakeholders, all in tandem and in integration, consent-based. The toolset isn't here yet. I yearn that it would be.

That would make Loomio the tool of choice to attack wicked problems such as structural poverty and global warming, and to bring governance decision making to the people for a better form of democracy.

A small group of us have a Loomio discussion going right now to help define what such a tool would look like, based on prior research and what is now possible with the Internet and with tools such as Loomio, today.

Several in the group are cyberneticians, but we understand the need for a much wider set of perspectives to guide the thinking. So if anyone would like to join us, we'd be honoured and grateful. Let me know if anyone is interested in joining in.

The intent is not to prescribe Loomio's roadmap. It is to discover what the solution needs to look like, and then see how to deliver it. The Loomio developers will decide if this is relevant to their work. I just see much potential for synergy.

Best regards,

@jeandaniel clue as to group name? (lack of private message capability again noted here)

@jeandaniel @lewgrothe I too would be be interested in a discussion about how to help Loomio become a tool that can attack larger issues.

Ben and Lew, I'm excited by the added perspectives you will bring to this discussion. The group name is "Appreciating Systems" and the sub-group is "Let's rewrite Team Syntegrity for the digital era". I don't see how to invite you without having your email address, but you can just request to join.

Steve Coffman found his way there already. Welcome aboard!

Archive of Team Syntegrity discussions at public Linkedin group,

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/lets-rewrite-team-syntegrity-digital-3680613.S.5931481193949192194

Mostly that is the type of thing I see loomio is taking about, just just not so plain language.

@elaineclermont, yes, Team Syntegrity is also about decision making. It is a process that goes through several stages, from divergent to convergent, converging onto several proposals in parallel and in integration.

It acknowledges that complex problems can't be solved with single silver bullet solutions. They need to be attacked/resolved along several parallel pathways that work together.

Loomio does not support that yet. I'd love it if it could, so it could be used for complex and integrated strategic decision making. The trick is to think about how to translate the Team Syntegrity process to the online environment. That was the point of the “Let’s rewrite Team Syntegrity for the digital era” group. What it concludes on could have been submitted for consideration to the Loomio roadmap if there is any interest.

It would be interesting to see a corporate client fund this sort of development so they could adopt Loomio for Board-level strategy making and decisions.

Each group that does carry out some form of fundraising, not limited to crowdfunding could have a fund / support / donate type link in the group header.

The number of people clicking through from the Loomio group could be measured along with their donation amount. This would give some quick and clear metrics as to how much Loomio is worth to the group or organisation.

Your proposal is similar to an idea I am fleshing out at the moment, will post more when it is presentable.

I am interested in the idea of paying for Loomio being a Loomio discussion in each group itself. Maybe a discussion could be raised in the group with the topic "Should we contribute financially to Loomio?" and the group could then make a decision about it. This is probably a pretty ridiculous proposition in terms of UX, but I'm attracted to the concept of using our collaborative deliberation tool itself to push the question of payment to groups.

@justin2
Sorry, perhaps my comment wasn't clear enough. I wasn't suggesting that Loomio provide the "Fundraising Mechanism" simply a way to link to the groups funding method / provider and track the traffic.

This could be :

1> In the Group header for Macro Fundraising
2> In the Discussion or Proposal header for Micro Fundraising

Right now we are all just brainstorming ways for Loomio to generate sustainable income and I feel that groups would benefit from seeing how "valuable" Loomio is to them specifically.

@alanna

I am interested in the idea of paying for Loomio being a Loomio discussion in each group itself.

This is an element of ideas I am working up at the moment.

So many interesting ideas! @alanna's summary was very helpful, thank you.

In an attempt to solve many problems in one fell swoop without creating too many others, I was thinking: since

(1) Loomio is open source,
(2) you're worried about getting more users than your servers can handle,
(3) you are looking for legitimate reasons to charge money to support hosting and development costs, and
(4) many companies would likely pay more than $2/user (as @wolftune mentioned, especially after certain features are added),

how about you:

(a) make it very simple for non-techies to run Loomio on Heroku's free tier (with Heroku Button);
(b) make it relatively easy for technical users to host their groups' own Loomio instances using Docker (started here by @robertguthrie);
(c) turn loomio.org into a site that showcases and provides a list of interesting Loomio groups kind of like it does now (except the groups are on different Loomio instances and hosted elsewhere), Team Loomio's blog/tutorials/FAQ, and a big fat Heroku Button for launching one's own Loomio instance for free; and
(d) charge companies and individuals (an average of > $2/user/month) who want to pay for a hosted solution, guaranteed support, etc at loomio.com (yes, dot com), perhaps at different tiers.

The result: Team Loomio ensures that non-paying users get the full Loomio experience by providing them 3 options ((a), (b), and (c) above), Team Loomio doesn't have to spend money supporting said users (Heroku does), Team Loomio can support itself with users/companies who do pay, and user data isn't centralized on Team Loomio's servers.

Thoughts?

/cc @alanna, @elaineclermont, @richarddbartlett, and... everyone else.

Don't want to be spamming, will make this super-short: I've mentioned it before. I still (in my totally biased view) think that the answer is for Loomio to fund development through Snowdrift.coop — perhaps nobody wants to really think about options that aren't yet available, but this is a long-term issue. We will be launching soon and our fund-drive to cover our final launch expenses is currently live at https://snowdrift.tilt.com !

Hi @deadsuperhero, fancy seeing you here :-). I assume you like the emphasis on self-hosting and one-click installs onto Heroku? Further thoughts?

@elimisteve Yeah, in the past there have been discussions of making Loomio federated in some way; I think perhaps giving users an opt-in directory that they can put their groups in would really empower those that want to self-host.

The directory itself could be on Loomio.org, and some of the entries could point to self-hosted instances. If Loomio still wants to go the federated route, it would in theory be possible to make it so that [email protected] could join [email protected] and participate in discussions.

Additionally, having some kind of turnkey service for large organizations that want a customized loomio instance might not be a bad way to go, although that might require putting your ear to the ground to find consumer demand.

I have an example to share: Sublime Text 2
It's a great code editor, and anyone can use the program on their computers while it's unregistered. You're reminded occasionally that your copy is still unregistered, their purchase page is simple and asks a fair price:
http://www.sublimetext.com/buy

@deadsuperhero Yes federation is on the cards for the future. Starting with a simple way for 3rd party loomio instances to publish public content to a central place would be a good start.

Long term I'm really interested in getting familiar with the google wave protocol.. after a first read it seems like it would be pretty useful for Loomio purposes.

However I think that plugin support should be built before all that.

@robertguthrie, in addition to the Google Wave protocol, check out http://tent.io. The Tent protocol was used to create https://cupcake.io -- which is actually where I met @deadsuperhero, coincidentally.

Tent tries to solve a similar set of problems, and has a stellar team behind it.

@robertguthrie Admittedly the Tent team is a bit scattered and focused more on building flynn than Tent.

@robertguthrie Unfortunately the Google Wave code hasn't been touched since 2011: https://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/source/list

@richarddbartlett and @matthewbartlett are going to be focusing on testing pricing models in the next couple months. Would be good to hear their take.

My take: fascinating to hear your thinking on this @jacobgadikian and amazing to hear Loomio described as the planned backbone of your business. I'd love to keep talking as your project gets less broke :)

I found @robertbeck and @adamlake 's language of 'standing' helpful in clarifying an uneasiness I have with the proposal (and in fact with many or most proposals in the Loomio Community group). Does this group have the standing to make decisions about potential charging structures for the software?

@matthewbartlett , I'm quick to agree that this community doesn't have the standing to make binding decisions about the continued development of the software. I think it generally depends on how proposals are worded. I hope that most participants understand that some people are much more invested in Loomio, in labor, finance and ongoing commitment, than others.

@matthewbartlett @gregorycassel This might not be the best channel for any of this but if I get it out there, maybe you can point me to the best channel-- so here goes:

I was sort of wrong to say that my organization is a business, and sort of right at the same time*. What I mean is this: When it comes to governments (which I regard as below pond scum-- pond scum is far more useful than most governments on earth today. One serves a function, the other is a destructive force) I'd mostly like Dawn to continue to be nothing (not register with any of them as any thing). Dawn is a network of individuals, organizations, and corporations working together in differing capacities towards the goal of a better world, realized through open source. Dawn is modular-- people can work in it full or part time, but they can never be employed by it. People can get paid, but only in the form of dividends, which are paid out as such: 1% ownership of dawn = 1% of the monthly dividend = 1% of control over Dawn. Early stakeholders are required to agree to dilute their ownership of Dawn as new stakeholders are added. In designing this business structure for running a value network, I tried to emphasize aligning incentives for collaboration. So far there are Dawn Nodes in three countries.

Loomio truly is the only product that can handle governance needs for an organization like Dawn. While running Dawn I've run into a number of other "network businesses." I think that this is very much a thing. The only thing that is unique about Dawn thus far (and it seems each network business has its own take on this concept, as they indeed should) is the stakeholder ownership concept. Here's how it's going to be done:

I'm going to make a 1 trillion unit cryptocurrency. When customers buy things from dawn or its affiliates, they receive some of that crypto. It's not cash, though people could use it as cash and it wouldn't really have an up or down effect on dawn organizationally speaking. It's an access and proportion token-- to Loomio, or whatever we fork Loomio into. I toyed with the concept of BDFL-hood, but I wouldn't trust someone else to do it, and I don't think I should trust myself to do it. I want users and collaborators (collaborator is the Dawn replacement term for "employee" and "vendor") to hold this Crypto, too. In fact, I have Enspiral in mind for this. The crypto is like a stock. It could possibly appreciate in value but that's not its purpose. Instead, it is to help Dawn to run a community well.

So curious if you folks have feedback on this......

BTW: One open source person to others, thanks so much for all of your work. Loomio is as functional as it is gorgeous on mobile devices. You've given humanity something awesome here.

*I think Dawn fills a role between a business, a charity, and a design firm. It is an attempt to use the best features of all 3 to have maximum impact. Here's what I mean-- Dawn is going to try to make a profit, and reinvest that profit into its nodes. Everything else will be paid to stakeholders as dividends as a non-slavery-esque replacement for a salary-- you own it, not the other way around.

Dawn has recently released its first hardware product. I would like to make a Loomio to run on that hardware if that is okay. You'd only need to choose a price for the device, and a split for the profit. Fenix's business model is one that funds the open code it relies upon. When we base a Fenix spin on one codebase or another, we go to the authors of that code and ask how they want to handle pricing and allocation of profits. Like you guys, Dawn is struggling to stay afloat, but hopefully, Fenix can be a bit of a liferaft for anyone in Open Source while we struggle to change the world for the better.

dawn @ itdawns.org
fenix @ fenixer.org

I should point out @jacobgadikian that I have no formal relationship with Loomio, but Matthew certainly does. Despite my lack of affiliation, I'm quite grateful for your fine tribute to Loomio-- that's how I feel too. :)