Proposal for Perl Foundation Memberships
The current Yet Another Society (The Perl Foundation) bylaws exclude the possibility of membership (see Article II https://www.perlfoundation.org/bylaws.html). As reference, the Python Foundation has 5 membership classes with various rights and privileges associated (https://www.python.org/psf/bylaws/).
I believe this to be a wasted opportunity to increase engagement with stake holders in the Perl community, be they individuals, business or other organizations. And also to secure funding for vital Perl related activities arranged by the Perl Foundation.
Rather than a complicated class system,a good starting point would be a single membership option with an annual renewal and no specific benefits than a warm feeling. (Although, throwing in some exclusive swag and a membership card might not be a bad little bonus)
This could then evolve based on feedback via a membership committee.
I have sent a brief proposal to the YAS (TPF) board to this effect. I invite your support in comments below and/or by contacting board members voicing your support (see https://www.perlfoundation.org/committees.html)
I blog about Perl. I am now in California
Membership classes invite gross inefficiencies and open the doorways for beaucratic manipulation. Best to just keep it simple. Perl programmers have plenty of means for membership. PAUSE, perlmonks, here, etc. Proof of work or engagement in the community is all one needs.
On the otherhand, I do think a committee system that focused on supporting key applications areas would be prudent. They could be volunteer run and membership could be chose from the pools of those who have shown committment to said application areas.
Examples include,
* application development tools: GUI toolkits, packagers, installers (particular for Windows), etc
* Computer Sciences: There is a severe lack of Perl toolkits for machine learning and machine vision (particularly OpenCV); the shining stars in this area are obviously PDL and BioPerl, but the only people who promote these first-rate projects are the community members who use them
* platform distribution liasons - e.g., not only seek opportunities to support decent "application stacks" for perl on different OSes, but also study how perl is distributed; and in some cases work with specific communities that might be wanting to do silly things like rip perl out of a base OS. Send OpenBSD a fruit basket at Christmas time would be nice, since they distribute perl with base.
The current system is clearly not working and finding ways to be more professional, raise money to do critically needed work is of upmost importance. The volunteer only model isn't cutting it. Just look at the state of Perl. IF we don't shake stuff up these jobs will disappear.
It would certainly be fair to pay a professional to manage volunteers *and* raise money. District Executives in the Boy Scout council structure is exactly this.
My general point was simply to register that the "membership" model is more a solution looking for a problem. But that's my opinion.
Just for additional information, YAS (TPF) is a 501c3 non-profit under US tax law. The same as The Python Software Foundation, The Free Software Foundation and others. I mention those two because they both have the same 501c3 status and both have paid memberships (see https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-amended-bylaws-current.pdf)
501c3 are available for a range of activities which are considered charitable . Most seem to be 501c3 if incorporated in the US - see https://flossfoundations.org/foundation-directory/
Bylaws of 501c3 can easily be amended by the board of directors. The state of incorporation (Michigan in YAS case) is notified and the IRS is notified as part of tax filings.
The IRS can revoke 501c3 status but given that the purpose of the foundation hasn't changed the risk seems extremely low, especially with other foundations.
I will note that OpenStack was denied its 501c3 status in 2014 but seems to have settled on 501c6.
("A 501 C (6) organization is tax speak for a business association such as a chamber of commerce. Although they're organized to promote business, they don't generate a profit and don't pay shares or dividends. That qualifies them as non-profit organizations, exempt from paying income tax.")
No i'm not a lawyer. But this stuff is well documented online.
I completely agree that the perl foundation should involve itself with key perl applications and frameworks. I have written about it in the past and continue to advocate for it.
Some examples of perl software that are with other foundations (not exhaustive)
mod_perl and spamassassin - apache foundation
bioperl - open bioinformatics foundation
lemonldap-ng - ow2
As it stands today, i would probably put my project under the software freedom conservancy.
Improving the professionalism and transparency of TPF was a clear request made by respondents to the 2020 brand values survey.
YAS (TPF) membership will help to engage the community and give YAS (TPF) more legitimacy.
This gets my vote: +1
What vital activities do you think TPF is funding? Conferences mostly raise their own money and TPF is a pass through. TPF is almost completely absent (or present in name only) for most things that keep working.
Before you think this is going to get you money, ask around at other non-profits about how much money they have to spend to get $1. You'll probably be shocked at the inefficiencies.
It's already pretty hard to extract money from open source communities, even for things they want and already use. Changing some bylaws isn't going to change people's incentives to donate.
And, I doubt that any structure, no matter what it is, is going to make p5p do anything they don't already want to do. They've rejected the idea of a pumpking, they are pushing back on the Steering Committee, and no one cares what TPF thinks.
I deliberately kept my proposal limited in scope so as to keep it focused and minimize scope for objections based on peripheral ideas.
Yes TPF funds very few activities, which i think is a problem.
And whilst I agree that membership fees probably won't rain in cash, having membership is a step towards more community involvement and closing the gap between what TPF is doing vs what people's expectations are.
p5p is one aspect of perl, and for most people the perl interpreter sits underneath layers of frameworks, documentation, and services that make "#!/usr/bin/env perl" useful.
For example DBI and it's drivers, Catalyst and nowadays Mojolicious, Template Toolkit, Imager, HTTP modules (LWP, HTTP::Tiny, Hijk etc), serialization modules like JSON/YAML/XML etc.
Day to day, these pieces are how people experience Perl and why businesses might use it.
Having "try" in core isn't all that useful if I can't read & write from mysql or postgresql.
I agree.
To not have memberships is to leave money on the table. Certainly Perl could do SOMETHING helpful with the money.
Plus people want to be involved if only to that extent. Regular financial contributions (membership dues) are literally a way for people to get invested in something they support.
The concerns described here are legitimate. But they don't outweigh the benefits.
I agree.
To not have memberships is to leave money on the table. Certainly Perl could do SOMETHING helpful with the money.
Plus people want to be involved if only to that extent. Regular financial contributions (membership dues) are literally a way for people to get invested in something they support.
The concerns described here are legitimate. But they don't outweigh the benefits.
I completely agree with Dean about not having membership (including corporate partnerships) is a wasted opportunity, and I would LOVE to see YAS' bylaws be changed to open to this revenue source.
And to those of you who say "But TPF isn't spending that much money, so why do we need more?" – please take some time to think about issues that are NOT being handled in our communities, that the TPF could help with if they had more resources to do so.
A proposal like this requires us to foremost focus on future opportunities that require resources to make happen.
(And yes – with more money, there are reasonable isuues one could raise around around transparency and accountability, but those are *different* questions than this one, and worth discussing in an appropriate venue.)
I'm all for it – Thanks for making this suggestion, Dean! :-)