[Ofa_boardplus] OFA XWG Agenda 9/14

[Paul Grun]

I am not particularly interested in the case where all, or substantially all, our members flee.  IMHO, that case is pretty easy...there is no OFA.  No reserves required at all. 

The much more likely scenario, IMHO, is one where we suffer a slump in income over a relatively extended period of time.  As I mentioned, there is precedence for this to be found in other trade organizations.  We should hold enough reserves to get us through those storms.   

I am not suggesting keeping a two year operating reserve.  But I am suggesting a one year reserve which can be used to carry us through a protracted slump in income.  Not ZERO income, just reduced income.  Big difference.

-Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Coulter, Susan K [mailto:skc at lanl.gov]
>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 3:48 PM
>To: Paul Grun <grun at cray.com>
>Cc: Fields, Parks M <parks at lanl.gov>; Coulter, Susan K <skc at lanl.gov>;
>ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org, <ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org>
>Subject: Re: [Ofa_boardplus] OFA XWG Agenda 9/14
>
>
>From the 2018 draft budget:
>Our projected operating expenses without the conference or interop (as they are
>supposed to break even) and without the $10k optional expenditure for
>maintainer travel/support is $129,798.
>
>Reserving 2 years operating expenses in the face of zero income is not
>reasonable in my opinion.
>If every member did not renew for 2 years - there is no OFA.
>If every member did not renew for 1 year - there is no OFA.
>If 1/2 the members did not renew for 1 year - the OFA continues, but our survival
>would be seriously in doubt.
>Slumps are one thing - mass exodus is another.
>
>I contend that 1 full year of operating expenses as our Operating Reserves is
>plenty.
>
>As for how to spend the operating reserves:
>
>Being conservative in our approach is commendable, but there is a time to be
>conservative and there is a time to be bold.
>
>Both of these “positions” were are talking about funding are contract positions.
>Neither one is enough to be a full time job for anyone with the skills we are
>looking for.
>So, these positions are not that different from what Sean suggests as “specific
>development” work.
>They will more than likely be filled by someone looking for part-time or adjunct
>work.
>
>If we do not fund these 2 positions in FY18, I fear the OFA will lose even more
>ground.
>If we lose our current ED, progress on various projects will stall.
>There is not enough participation from the volunteer board members to keep this
>boat fully afloat.
>
>If we do not hire a maintainer (or at the least contract for specific development
>work) the code base may suffer and our standing in the community will stall or
>regress.
>
>We cannot wait an entire year to make this move.
>
>For those who do not want to spend reserves on these positions - please
>immediately start a conversation with whomever is funding the OFA membership
>for your organization.  As I said on the call - I have done this at LANL and I have
>tentative approval for a doubling of the membership fee.
>
>As promised, I have attached the talking points I used, and the modified contracts
>used to ballpark the “doubling” of the fee.