[gtaylor]

If he's asking for money from me, I would like to know why it's not an option. The root of the issue being raised is power/space, so I'd definitely want to know why I'm forking up for something the project could potentially get for free.

It's not a big deal, and I don't expect him to go into detail. He just won't get a cent from me without elaborating, and that's OK. I'm not mad, and I understand he has mis-givings. I just don't think that answer is acceptable enough for me to donate, but that's my subjective opinion (and not everyone else's).

[astrodust]

If you're asking for help and you have constraints, you better qualify those constraints in a way that builds confidence.

The more transparency you have in your discussion, the more supportive people will be.

[justin66]

> The more transparency you have in your discussion, the more supportive people will be.

I think that's total, obvious nonsense and if you need to be convinced, here's an exercise: consider how much money the average nonprofit would raise if people knew where all that money went.

[wpietri]

You mean like publishing accounts? Maybe even including salaries for the highly paid people?

Because every US nonprofit is required by law to do that. You can browse it all on line: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

[justin66]

That is a nice tool, thanks. Someone else posted something similar recently and it wanted to charge $250 for membership or something like that.

The web is bringing a lot of good transparency to nonprofits but there's still a lot of repugnant wastefulness and avarice that often isn't captured well by a 990 form. (publishing salaries is pretty huge, though)

I stand by my point that the more a person learns about the average charity the less they're going to want to donate... transparency doesn't magically lead to supportiveness. And wanting a project to account for every watt of electricity is just completely silly.

edit: transparency is a way for better charities to look good relative to poor ones, yes, but all things being equal, it's a negative for fundraising: as with business and government, a lot of what goes on in ANY organization is ugly to look at and is bound to turn some people off. (none of that is an argument against transparency itself, let's just not kid ourselves about its usefulness for raising money)

[astrodust]

The more transparency there is, the better the legitimate charities look and the less likely people are to throw money at what turn out to be obvious scams.

Transparency is critical.

[wpietri]

I get your point, but I think you're generally wrong. My criterion around that for donating is not, "Is this place perfect?" but "Is this place materially more screwed up than any other organization?"

I'm sure there are some people with unrealistic standards that would not donate at all. And I'm sure that there are plenty of organizations that take advantage of a lack of transparency to do dubious things. But the solution to that is more transparency. And more analysis of the transparent information, so that people can easily contextualize it.

[cgh]

OpenBSD is developed and released in Canada. I'm not sure if they are a US non-profit or not so maybe these laws don't apply.

[noselasd]

Which is the point exactly. People DO have confidence in the nonprofits they donate to. It might not be warranted at all, but the nonprofit has actively built confidence for their audience.

[cdash]

The average nonprofit isn't worthy of the money they get so unless you are trying to say OpenBSD is not worthy of the money and the only way they can get it is to hide the details then I don't get what your point is.