Re: [gentoo-nfp] The Foundation is a business, just NPO was -> What could the Gentoo Foundation do with money?

[Alec Warner]

On 5/24/08, William L. Thomson Jr. <wltjr@g.o> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 20:56 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
>  >
>  > You seem to want to run the foundation like a business.\
>
>  Well unfortunately the foundation is a business. Like it or not, just a
>  non-profit business. You really can't informally run a foundation. I
>  don't think it was ever meant to be a grass roots foundation. I think
>  many have had their own views of the foundation. But I think Daniel had
>  an initial concept, and that wasn't a lame duck foundation. Then again,
>  I don't 100% agree with all concepts there, but something in between,
>  sure.
>

I don't think his 'dream' of the foundation is necessarily relevant.

>  >  Please stop
>  > that. You are crossing the line where Gentoo should have something like
>  > it's own Corp vs Foundation worrying about money.
>
>  Even if you had a corp and foundation. The foundation would still need
>  to be run like a business. Just because it's a NPO and/or you call it a
>  foundation doesn't mean you throw operating as a business out the
>  window. As soon as you file papers, and establish a legal entity. You
>  have created a business and to an extent it should be operated and run
>  like one. Just not one focused on profit, one focused on other things :)

What I think solar is trying to say is that there are a number of
foundation members who view the foundation as just an IP holder.  It
exists because in 'meatspace' we are required to have a legal entity
to hold shared IP.

Not everyone wants to have tons of cash, corporate sponsors, large
conferences, etc.

>
>  Having a corp and foundation, would just be two business to run.
>
>  Now Gentoo, like many other foundations. Won't have "Bosses" per say. I
>  think many people are to worried about the power aspects. When really
>  these ideas are nothing of the sort. In fact any concerns wrt to power
>  can easily be addressed in the bylaws. As they should be.
>
>  It has been said that things like GLEP 39, shouldn't be a GLEP but some
>  sort of a more formal document. I am not opposed to writing aspects of
>  the council into the foundations Bylaws. It's part of the foundation in
>  the sense that both are attached to Gentoo. Not part wrt to power, like
>  the foundation dictates to council. To clarify the councils purpose,
>  stipulations, slacker rules, etc. Those things should be declared in a
>  more formal document. As others have stated. I can't think of a better
>  place than the bylaws.

I think you will find that a number of folks would disagree with
putting anything like that in the bylaws because the foundation is not
intended to have anything to do with development at large.  It is
intended as a IP holding entity; nothing else.

I'm not saying that view is right or wrong and I wholly expect changes
anyway; just be aware that a number of developers see things that way
and that is why they are so concerned by all the 'businessy' stuff;
since the foundation was not created to do those things (hence a
second corp).

>
>  In the bylaws we can easily specify that the council has veto, and/or
>  complete power over the board and officers. So anyone worried about such
>  things. Can move past those concerns now :)
>
>
>  --
>  William L. Thomson Jr.
>  amd64/Java/Trustees
>  Gentoo Foundation
>
>
>
-- 
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list