Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: trustees <trustees@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Status meeting --- 30 March
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:43:05
Message-Id: 1206553380.6191.42.camel@liasis.inforead.com
This is a brief update for the status meeting this Sunday.

1.  I have not yet heard back from Mr. Chew in New Mexico on our
reinstatement.  He indicated that it would take a few days, so this is
not a concern.  I do not know (and he did not know) just what
information he needs from the state, so NM government agencies might be
involved.  I'll call him at the end of the week if we haven't heard
anything.

2.  I have looked at the proposed bylaws on our web site and as revised
on 2007-01-22.  Except for the change from NM to Delaware, the proposed
revision is closer to what we actually are.  That said, let me raise a
few points.
    a.  The (2007-01-22) proposal is quite detailed.  Do we want the
initial bylaws to go into such specificity?  This is probably not a big
deal one way or the other, because the bylaws are easily amended.  And
NM does not care what is in them as long as they do not conflict with NM
law.
    b.  Both sets of bylaws call out both a Board (of Trustees) and
officers of the Foundation chosen by the trustees.  At the moment, we
(the trustees) are acting as the officers of the Foundation (because we
chose ourselves if for no other reason).  We need to think through how
this works and what structure we want.
    c.  Trustees must be members of the Foundation, but Officers of the
Foundation need only to be alive (in order to carry out their duties).
Right now that is probably OK because we have neatly resolved the issue
for the moment (see point b).

Because everything we do (in NM or anywhere else) keys off the bylaws, I
lean toward a recommendation as follows:  After a quick scrub for sanity
and correctness, adapt the 2007-01-22 revision, with an eye to amending
it as experience warrants.  And I know Roy has some ideas along these
lines which might belong in the bylaws or not.  My inclination is to
pursue his ideas by other means because the bylaws should be rather
brief and general:  The bylaws are the rules explaining who we are and
how we work procedurally.  Thus, it is appropriate and necessary for the
bylaws to explain who the members are and how we vote, but inappropriate
for them to call out the President's salary.  The bylaws are an enabling
document, giving the Trustees authority to act.

My thanks to my "brother in law to be" Renat Lumpau for his work to
produce the 2007-01-22 revision.  (For the slow among you, that's an
in-joke of sorts.)

I hope to have a bit more on this later this week, but I am sending this
out a bit early because I know Josh is travelling this weekend. and I
wish to give him a chance to respond.

Regards,
Ferris

-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-nfp] Re: Status meeting --- 30 March joshua jackson <tsunam@g.o>