Sponsorship Opportunity

Geocaching Australia governance issues
User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 10:48 pm

KevL wrote:I've only been caching for a little over 12 months.:D
The following is some mental ramblings on what is a tough subject.

Picture , if you will, a popular park /location on Saturday afternoon with 25 people trying to get a FTF? :?
How hard will that virgin parkland cache be to find after 2000 people have worn a path to it?
Part of the charm of geocaching is the "underground" nature of the 'sport'. The nonchalant glance under a rock, the casual look in a hole in a tree. Who hasn't had a phone conversation with their gps. How much fun will it be if everybody in the park knows what your up to. And yells ,nah the other rock!
Whilst we certainly don't want any sort of limit or control on who plays, advertising on national scale to encourage participants may be going too far. Is this a sport that can handle vast numbers of players?
Word of mouth and stumbling upon caching has worked so far.

But it's hard to say no to financial security. This will be an interesting topic in the coming weeks.


Kev
25 people fighting over FTF ? Agreed. This could be painful and while not specifically addressed in the OP, an influx of people may have a detrimental effect on the site and the game. Over time, this will happen anyway, but the sponsorship deal would make it happen a lot faster.

Your point of virgin parkland and many people trudging over it to find cache is a most excellent point. I have no answer to this. Whether we agree to sponsorship or not, the number of people playing the game will increase and the problem will arise. We just get there faster with a sponsor.

If people starting calling out to me that it was the "other" rock, on some caches I might appreciate that :-) Humour aside, this answer is the same as above. It will happen. Not now, not in a few years, but will happen sooner or later. Remember that GC will continue to grow regardless of whether the website called GCA has a sponsor or not.

Financial security is nice. It's partly about the potential regularity of money and not having riblit, CraigRat or I come out every 6 or 9 months and beg for more. We like to go geocaching as well and we (or someone else) will need to invest time in raising money in future years.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 10:51 pm

totalube wrote:Does this mean that this marketing company will have access to our details?
Will they be using the GCA community as a data mine for their other clients?
Who else do they market for?
If it is relevant to geocaching that might be OK, but it would be good to know who there other clients are.

I too would prefer to pay subscription.

Or be sponsored by a a company like Johnny Appleseed, Garmin, etc
I have addressed the first questions earlier.
On the subscription, that has been responded to tonight. People say they will, but ultimately only some who say they will, do.
I would prefer sponsorship from a GPS provider or reseller. They haven't offered so that part of the discussion can't be addressed.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 10:52 pm

ian-and-penny wrote:Whilst I'm not a senator . . . I would also like to emphatically say "NAY", for all the reasons outlined in the posts above mine.

Ian
No comment, but just a reply to say that I did read and put in perspective your post.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 10:59 pm

roundcircle wrote:Without knowing exactly who the company is, or exactly what the product is, it's not really possible to give an opinion. Though I would question how successful any campaign that was based on selling Geocaching would be. As much as I think it's a great sport, I have friends and family who think I'm nuts. (Perhaps this opinion is not based on Geocaching).

I think that the sponsorship as described is very opposed to the the idea of "Free and Open" caching. But subscriptions are hard work in the long term and at the end of the day, regardless of what the outcome is, sponsorship, subscriptions, donations, generous benefactor, not everyone will be happy. We (you) need to chose the outcome with the least dissatisfied people.

I have been looking at the way Radio station RRR has been run and funded. If you live near Melbourne you may have heard them. I think they are a great radio station, and they have launched many names that have been successful in radio and TV in this country. Much like Geocaching, they have a product that is hard to restrict (radio) and is predominantly funded by their listener community. They have a subscriber drive once a year They drive listeners mad for a few weeks, but the rest of the year it's just background noise. They have had big sponsors. Ford in particular. But ultimately the listener community said they didn't like this, and so RRR said no to Ford and the listeners have stumped up since.

Personally, I have no real issue with a sponsor. As long as long as the sponsor is seen as a supporter and not the owner of the game and does not substantially change the way the game or the GCA site works.

I have no real issue with developers making money for their efforts. I think nearly all of us work to live. If the developers can get some financial benefit for their efforts, and it does not unreasonably impact me, then good luck to them.

Given the growth that the sport (hobby, activity) has experienced both here and globally, I don't see how it can continue as a free hobby provided to the many by a few keen individuals. Looking at the growth of GC.com, I'm sure it would have failed if a somebody had not stood up to run it as a business. As unpopular as that has been with many at the time. It would seem that GCA is going to have the same challenges over the next few years.

GCA should also be aware that if they turn the current sponsor down, then the sponsor may go to GC.com or to one of the other caching sites. GCA might get the traffic, but not the benefit.

In short, I don't really like it and don't think I really have enough information to give an answer anyway. Keep in mind I'm not that keen on subscriptions or donations either, though I understand and will support through these methods.

In short and in principle, I'd give sponsorship serious thought. So go for it.
For the purposes of this discussion, how about we assume that the sponsor is OK. We can debate that some more when we are allowed to tell you who it is. If we had a true Senate, then we could swear the senators to secrecy and let hem know who it is. As we no secrecy in an open forum I can't tell you who they are.

Your second point is well taken. Subs, donations, sponsorship need to be balanced and acted upon. There is no-one other than the developers and GTi who are acting on anything at the moment and I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by it all.

Your third point is also well taken. A sponsorship deal may not work out. I'm sure the people that end up signing the contract will have a termination clause in the event that things don't go the way we forsee.

On the ownership of the game, no one entity can own the game. You can see that from the number of listing sites there are around the world. Whether the perception that the sponsor would be seen to "own" the game would need to be very clearly understood prior to proceeding.

It is very possible that the sponsor may go to another listing site to get the same coverage and we miss out. That would be something the community would need to understand.

Thanks for your input, especially the information about RRR and their sponsorship deals.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:07 pm

Papa Bear_Left wrote:I'm very much in two minds about this...

On the one hand, the money would be nice and, if the activity was confined specifically to GCA, I think it might be workable.

On the other hand, having a wide-spread perception that geocaches are something you find and maybe win a car from doesn't sound like a good idea and I'd hate to see my GC.com caches trashed by greedy yobbos who are pissed off because there's nothing but $2 shop stuff in there.

It's the old question of how much we want the sport/game/activity to grow, isn't it? If it goes completely mainstream, then the nature of it changes a lot. Hard to keep a cache safe by being sneaky around muggles if their first thought is "Oo, I wonder if he's looking for one of those.. thingy... geocaches, like in the ads!"


At the very least, if we do go ahead with this, I'd like to see an opt-out option for GC-listed caches being referenced here. And I'd use it for most, probably all, of my caches. (Better yet would be an opt-in system, since GC.com cache-owners haven't even tacitly agreed to be part of the GCA sponsor's collateral.)

Another thought, led to from that one... Groundspeak would be less happy to turn a blind eye to the TOU violations that presumably drive the current system here if another commercial entity was making money from their listing service.
On your first hand, the intent is to sponsor GCA the website, not Geocaching the game. It would have an benefit to the website and there are pros and cons on the game overall.

The question of prizes and trashed caches is an interesting one. Your GC caches would be marginally impacted by the GCA sponsorship deal. Yes, the person could sign up to both sites and then your caches which are listed at GC are at risk. If the concept of major prizes is distasteful, then I'm sure that the ultimate deal will avoid such situations. I would appreciate more feedback on this question. Keep in mind that with GCA being free and open, there is nothing at all to stop anyone doing this right now.

There are around 1-2,000 active cachers in any given month in Australia. The same people don't play every month, so they're not accurate statistics, but I'd be safe in saying that there were probably not more than 3,000 active cachers in total. If that number doubled or trebled we would still be nowhere near the size of the game in the US or UK. Sooner or later the game will grow. The question is whether we would like to have a hand in helping the game grow or do we let it grow "organically"?

I'll leave the last couple of points alone for the time being. I know they are sensitive and are best not addressed in this discussion. Finds cannot be made on those caches via GCA, not can you see description or co-ords. They are essentially outside the GCA sphere with regards to sponsorship.

We are not intending to make money in any way shape or form. We are looking at a cost recovery basis for the website and the way that Australians may want to run the game for Australians. This is a philosophical discussion and another that would be best taken up outside this particular discussion.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:14 pm

richary wrote:I'm not completely sure but lean towards saying yes.

I agree with roundcircle's and PBL's comments. It depends on how they want to market it I guess.

As for the previous comments, geocaching isn't so much a hidden secret activity these days. Just look at the media sections both on GCA and GC to see the newspaper articles and radio interviews that have happened. A lot of the public have been informed about it (whether they choose to remember is up to them). And yes, I have done a couple of those radio interviews.

To put it in a nutshell I am happy with "GCA sponsored by xxx" concept as long as the sponsorship only means an extra icon to click on if you choose to on the front page and doesn't develop into annoying popup ads etc. As long as we retain control of the site and what happens then it is OK. Of course this would be easier if the site was run by an incorporated association rather than a group of volunteers with no formal structure but that is a separate issue.

That's actually a significant problem with the structure as it stands, and casting no bad comments about any of the developers. At the moment it is on ideology's servers. He has total control of the site, if he chooses to shut it then it goes. What happens when it is on another company's servers with a number of developers having admin access. Then one of them takes a $100k bribe to hand over the admin passwords and the company that now hosts the site with the web address directed to them takes it over? I am not suggesting anybody would sell out, but with the current financial climate it isn't beyond possibility that with a financial crisis the offer could be tempting.

The legal side should be sorted and I am not sure how that could happen under the current arrangement, unless either the Tas or NSW organisations take formal ownership.

With those negatives put aside, if the protections are in place I am quite happy to take the money (figuratively speaking anyway)
The game is growing. This is evidenced by the increase in finds whether they be on GC or GCA caches. Small publicity in papers and other media will cause us to grow. We can already see that by the increasing numbers who are signing up to the site. A big marketing push by a large sponsor would increase that rate and cause us to get bigger, faster, but not necessarily completely outgrow the final numbers.

There will be NO popups. There will be NO ads other than sponsored by ... tag line. Whether the logo is included or not it yet to be discussed.

If Ideology decided tomorrow to throw a hissy fit and shut down the site we would have recourse. I understand them to be completely unlikely to do that. If they did want their server back tomorrow, we can download a copy of the entire site, data, code, etc tomorrow and be up and running on a new host in less than a week.

The question of bribery is an interesting one and one that has not real means of addressing. The fallback plan should the sponsorship get yanked involves multiple daily backups of the data and code offsite. We could easily have the data send off to two or more places so that one of your developers would always have a copy ready to start up again. If necessary and there was an association or entity that owned GCA, then additional copies could be created each night ensuring a viable recovery option.

Legal questions over which entity would sign a contract are to be discussed and agreed.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:19 pm

PesceVerde wrote:Not sure of the Senate rules however as a cacher, "Please don't test the [sponsorship] water with both feet." was my initial response to this idea.

Any commercial enterprise, even marketing, will be planning to somehow make a profit, as well it should, but at what cost to GCA in the longer term. What is this company's track record regarding sponsorships of other entities? Would a partial sponsorship, without the new cars and flashing lights, be an option?
Profit for them, cost recovery for us. That is a given.

Our interest is for funding for the webserver. Anything else the sponsor wants to do would be their own activity. That would be no different if I won a million dollars, gave $50K to GCA for their server and went and hid a cache with a car side (yes, it would listed as a large cache).

As far as I can easily discern, there are few sponsorship deals that this sponsor has been involved in. Up until now it appears that they have run as a business, buying ad space, etc as most companies do. Effectively, I can't comment on how their other sponsorships are handled, but it's a good question if we decide to go back to them to progress any discussions.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:21 pm

zactyl wrote:
rhinogeo wrote:Requiring you be be a GCA Subscriber to hide a cache would also weed out a lot of the crappy caches that get placed sans review.
Straying from the topic, but I can't let this one go unchallenged, I've found a whole lot of crappy Groundspeak listed caches that were reviewed. With no disrespect to our reviewers all it guarantees (and not even that sometimes) is that it's probably in a public place at least 161m from other caches and has a container and a log book. Nothing about it being uncrappy.

Back to the topic, I think this sponsorship offer is worth looking into. Publicity isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's not as thought everyone hearing about it will rush out and look for caches, only the interested ones will, as with current media articles. Requiring a GPS is a big barrier.
Interesting analogy popped into my head while reading this one. Not everyone who own a 4WD goes 4WDriving. Not everyone who heard the GCA promotions and created an account would continue hiding and finding GCA caches.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:23 pm

Bewilderbeest wrote:The offer from this company is very generous and their offer of support is greatly appreciated - we should make sure they know that. However, I have some concerns about where some of their ideas might take geocaching. Perhaps some of their ideas could be discussed and modified to be more in keeping with the traditions of geocaching?

Ultimately I like the "fringe activity" aspect of the game, so would prefer a simpler and more unobtrusive form of support - such as the sponsor's name/logo on the website, and providing some prizes for annual cache of the year events in each State/Territory or something along those lines.

By providing prizes for good cache hides, it encourages the quality side of things, but doesnt change the nature of the game dramatically.
Thanks for your feedback. I think I've addressed your points tonight in other posts. I like fringe, but sooner or later we will become less fringe and more mainstream.

Cache of the year is interesting, but in general rewards the hider not the finder. Not to discount the suggestion, very well worth storing for future discussions with the sponsor should they arise.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Sponsorship Opportunity

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:31 pm

Jardry wrote:Richary makes a point as to who "owns" GCA, initially it would be whoever owns the domain name. Likewise the voluntary developers have put a lot of work into making the site what it is. Ideally the "ownership" should be vested to a not-for-profit organisation like Geocaching Tasmania or Geocaching NSW.

In a corporate world, you never get anything for nothing, there is always payback.

C@W's numbers make interesting reading. Obviously not all 8,000 members are active members. However an annual membership fee of just a couple of dollars a year would ensure the future for the server requirements.

I also believe in the KISS approach - KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!

GCA can have "normal" members and "financial" members. Hopefully peer pressure will make normal members become financial members. Alternatively everyone gets a FREE one year membership and then agrees to pay a small annual membership which could be as low as $5/year. If 25% of the 8,000 members paid $5, there would be $10,000 available each year.

If others are opposed to formal memberships, then the donations drive each year is the go.

As others have said - it sounds too good to be true. I see the commercialisation of geocaching to be a negative. Conceivably any corporate sponsor could do a lot of damage to geocaching in a very short period of time.

Imagine the marketing company creating a competition to win a car by finding a set of different tokens they've placed in various caches. A bit like opening the top of Coke bottles and seeing if you've won a prize. If the tokens are then linked to having to buy another product before you can enter to win, the whole concept of the sport/hobby changes.

Again, C@W refers to the previous thread regarding the funding of the server, what was said in that thread could be echoed in this thread. As much as GCA is free and open, there comes a time where some formality is required (a NFP entity that "owns" GCA) so that it can be kept as free and open as possible.
Ownership of Geocaching Australia and the domain name are indeed questions that need to be addressed prior to any deal going through. In fact once we move away from the Ideology solution, we may need to transfer ownership of the domain name anyway, so this needs to be addressed regardless of the proposed sponsorship.

In terms of getting people to pay, lots of people have said they will, but most don't. I love every single one of you who has provided a donation or bought some stickers.

Geocaching is not being commercialised. It's already commercialised. GCA will have a sponsor. We are talking about sponsorship the site, not the game. We do not control the game, but with some sponsorship we could encourage it down a path that we prefer rather than site on the sidelines.

Free and open means free and open. We would discourage the sponsor from offering prizes based on additional purchases. You will probably find that any substantial prizes will need to be accompanied by a set of rules and be registered as such. In SA, you don't even need to buy the initial product. How the sponsor would deal with the way that they wanted to offer prizes can be a discussion encouraging them towards moderation, but if they get legal clearance and decide to do it, free and open means we can't and won't stop them. Right now, tomorrow, they could decide to hide 50 caches around the country, list them here and away they go.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:41 pm

solomonfamily wrote:Firstly to the marketer - thank you very much for the offer. I feel that there is an opportunity for mutual gain.

And thank you too to those negotiating...

One thought leading to another but here is my thought trail....

I would not like to see TV / Radio adds that highlight geocaching "XYZ a proud sponsor of geocaching Australia"

Do GC.com have TV / radio ads?

I would be more than happy for our web site to be "bannered" by ads to fund hosting, development activities or even etiquette aids (another topic). Depending on the product, I would be happy for labeling with some type of GCA connection.

Having mass publicity does however has consequences....

Are we heading in a direction to see GCA dominate over GC as the listing service here? (several pros and cons here too)

Is it correct that a still a very small percent of hides in Australia are GCA only listed. (GC then GCA then Others)

Having mass publicity directing punters will put pressure on our developers and maintainers. Hardware aside will "we" then create a need to employ staff to maintain our site and grow it. Within the guidelines of an agreed strategy.... Again a sincere thank you to all those that put time into it now - it is not fair for additional burden on you.

For those that have been around longer that I have, was there ever any thought given to getting a .org.au as opposed to a .com.au . IMHO we are better suited to a .org.au or .asn.au

I like the game the way it is, as a fringe activity - but the world is changing. GPS's are being incorporated into the phones we carry and the cars we drive - it is natural that people will seek out ways to play with the technology at there finger tips like never before. In another thread GC is developing an app for the iphone etc etc. ....

In short: soft approach, no flashing bill boards - web banners cool.
And a product sample to all GCA account holders :-)
If the sponsor sponsor us, they will go to the media in a manner agreed by both parties. I doubt we will have a sponsorship deal if we restrict them from saying they sponsor Geocaching Australia in any form of media. It's how they are intending to add to their coffers.

I can't answer on behalf of Groundspeak and their business model. I have no idea.

The are some 15,000 active caches in Australia of which 600 are GCA caches. I doubt that anytime soon GCA would exceed GC. Their future is secure.

Support of the website falls on 4 shoulders. riblit, CraigRat and I do the coding, support, activation of new accounts, followup of archives, etc. Ideology do the back end webserver support when it goes titsup. I doubt we would have issues asking for another few (or so) volunteers with specific assigned duties to help. It might even result in a free subscription for them :-)

I don't know the history of geocaching.com.au vs. net.au vs. org.au so I can't respond to this question.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:50 pm

totalube wrote:Thinking about it, I would have to agree with solomonfamily. It would be better to have ads (for specific products) on the site than have a link to a marketing company.

The site would have more control on who it advertises. But with a link to an external site they could advertise and direct people from here to anyone they wanted.

Also, without knowing who the main clientele of this marketing company was, it is hard to make a judgement on to what effect this deal will have.

As stated above, does GCA want to become a major listing sites for caches, or continue in it's current format.

Would there be any issues with this deal and GC caches, if their marketing ideas clash with GC TOS.

It feel like with this deal GCA would loose control over what advertising is directed to and from GCA, and what kind of promotions it will use.

If we need to raise some revenue through sponsorship, I would prefer ads for relevant companies such as sphere, johnny appleseed or even groundspeak
I think CraigRat has responded to one or two of your points,so apologies for repeating.

The sponsor is one sponsor. They have (essentially) a single product. We would be "Geocaching Australia sponsored by ...". That's it. No ads. No popups. As there is no advertising here, they cannot divert anyone away from the site. It's our site, run by us controlled by us. We have full autonomy.

Do we want for GCA caches?
NOTE: PERSONAL OPINION ONLY.
On a purely personal note (everything else tonight has been with a GCA "senatorial" hat on), yes I would love more GCA caches. I put a huge load of effort into the site and I would love to see more people using it. I get really disheartened when people criticise the site and they don't realise that there is a person sitting here, cutting code, debugging bugs, thinking up new ways of having fun, supporting the site that they use but do not support. I don't do this for love and adoration, I do it for fun. I would like to see more GCA caches that suit the Australian way and not have to abide by the rules set by a company some many thousands of miles away who have no idea about us, how we act and the manner in which we conduct our lives day to day.

GC caches are listed, sought, found and claimed on GC. We are not affiliated in anyway, so anything we choose to do, we would do.

We don't do ads. We made a decision long ago to not do ads. GPS manufacturers could ask for ads, but we would say no, we don't do ads.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:53 pm

rhinogeo wrote:
zactyl wrote:
rhinogeo wrote:Requiring you be be a GCA Subscriber to hide a cache would also weed out a lot of the crappy caches that get placed sans review.
Straying from the topic, but I can't let this one go unchallenged, I've found a whole lot of crappy Groundspeak listed caches that were reviewed. With no disrespect to our reviewers all it guarantees (and not even that sometimes) is that it's probably in a public place at least 161m from other caches and has a container and a log book. Nothing about it being uncrappy.
Of course crappy caches can and are listed on both sites but having a subscription requirement if you want to list a cache on GCA may weed out a number of the toss the takeaway container in the leaf litter fly-by-nighters and provide some funding for the site

Until GCA is an incorporated entity I don't know how sponsorship or subscription can proceed :? Donations now are being run through GTi but who would the proposed sponsorship contract be with? Ideology since I assume they own the domain name and currently host the site? The voluntary developers who do all the hard work and make the site what it is and work as well as it does?
I think I've answered the question, so this is acknowledgement on your post.

Yes, we will need a legal entity to signup (if we indeed do proceed to signup). We probably need one anyway, so if someone wants to start a topic on how / what we do, I'll watch with interest.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:54 pm

Team Piggy wrote:I would still personally see a member plan, Pay a few bucks for extra features, if you dont want to pay you get bare bones basics.

Eg google ads for basic members and not for paying etc, Ad clicks also generate more money too.

I wondered if Project Orange had been reinstated when I first read it :roll:
Free and open was originally about free and open. We dislike the idea of restricting functionality to only those who pay. Your point is valid though and our position may need to change.

No ads :-)

(Actually this is called Project Purple, neither of which have a natural rhyme).

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 01 October 08 11:59 pm

Geof wrote:And if we say no what will be their next move?

Are they here "making us an offer we can't refuse"?

Are we less damned if we do than if we don't?

The underground, free and open aspect has been good thus far. :wink:

I see "free and open" more about being independant from third partys and propriatory ideals.
Their next move may be to approach Groundspeak or enter into a sponsorship arrangement with someone else. Hey, maybe I'll create a new opencaching site, steal the code from here and make a million bucks with them :-)

No. We can refuse the offer. We just go back to a more painful manner of rainsing money for the servers. Donations, sales, subscriptions, found coins in the street, etc.

I can't answer your third point. The details will be in the final contract if we get that far. I have had a single 20 minute phone conversation with them and a few emails. I can't say that we are less or more damned if we do or we don't. I would love the security of funding, but the interests of the GCA community are greater than my wants. If I wanted to I could go sign them up tomorrow after having set up a Pty Ltd. But that's not what we do here. We engage and ask and then hopefully come to consensus.

Some will be happy, some will be ambivalent, some will be unhappy, others will simply complain because they can even though they don't support the site.

Free and open means (essentially), no charge and no rules. How we get money does not restrict free and open.

Locked