Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: John Alberts <john.m.alberts@×××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation update
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:55:15
Message-Id: b41005390801181455w6db6b97bq9a5d2b27d18e002b@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation update by John Alberts
1 On 1/18/08, John Alberts <john.m.alberts@×××××.com> wrote:
2 > Thank you for taking the time to elaborate so well on the status of everything.
3 >
4 >
5 > > That said, there has been a
6 > > lot of support for what drobbins has proposed
7 > > (http://blog.funtoo.org/2008/01/here-my-offer.html), which would make
8 > > the Foundation responsible for the health and direction of Gentoo as a
9 > > whole. That's a discussion that's certainly worth having, and
10 > > gentoo-nfp@g.o is standing by.... Let's try not to take forever
11 > > having this discussion, so consider Monday, 23:59 UTC, to be a deadline
12 > > for your electronic voice to be heard.
13 >
14 > The only way the word will truly get out about this, is to put a
15 > notice on the front page with a link to this message. Maybe someone
16 > who has access to the front page could post a little something on
17 > there about this?
18
19 Patience, a link is coming ;)
20
21 -Alec
22
23 >
24 > John Alberts
25 >
26 >
27 >
28 > On Jan 18, 2008 2:15 PM, Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote:
29 > > Here's an update. It's the same as on my blog.
30 > >
31 > >
32 > > Current state of affairs
33 > > ------------------------
34 > >
35 > > With help from Renat Lumpau (rl03), I spent some time this week talking
36 > > to the Foundation's lawyers, collecting documents, and sifting through
37 > > old e-mails. As I posted on gentoo-nfp a couple of days ago, the state
38 > > of New Mexico did, indeed, revoke the charter for the Gentoo Foundation,
39 > > Inc. in October of 2007. It's still not entirely clear why, since I
40 > > mailed a check along with the (then) current and past-due annual reports
41 > > to the state of NM way back in July. Since the check never cleared, it
42 > > seems a good guess that the paperwork went astray, but we won't know
43 > > until Renat's request (and $5) are processed by NM and they get back to
44 > > him.
45 > >
46 > > In any event, having the Foundation's charter revoked is exceptionally
47 > > embarrassing, but not catastrophic. The state of NM has a
48 > > straightforward procedure for reinstating a revoked charter, as long as
49 > > the request to do so is filed within two years of the charter's
50 > > revocation. This morning I sent by USPS Express Mail (tracking number
51 > > EO 943 358 815 US for those who want to play follow-the-paperwork from
52 > > home) an envelope to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission,
53 > > Corporations Bureau containing an application for reinstatement, copies
54 > > of the missing annual reports, and a check for $60.
55 > >
56 > > Does the Foundation currently exist?
57 > > ------------------------------------
58 > >
59 > > Yes.
60 > >
61 > > Many, many people have assumed, quite understandably, that with the
62 > > Foundation's charter having been revoked, that the Foundation has thus
63 > > ceased to exist. That's not really true. You can see this by looking
64 > > at the NM statutes, but it's simplest to see by looking at what happens
65 > > when NM receives the application for reinstatement. The New Mexico
66 > > public regulation commission will determine if all of our paperwork is
67 > > in order. If it isn't, they'll let us know what we need to do to
68 > > complete it. Once it is, the commission will cancel the certificate of
69 > > revocation and file a certificate of reinstatement that takes effect "as
70 > > of the effective date of the administrative revocation and the
71 > > corporation resumes carrying on its business as if the administrative
72 > > revocation had never occurred".
73 > >
74 > > http://tinyurl.com/2v6qtl
75 > >
76 > > Who is in charge here, anyway?
77 > > ------------------------------
78 > >
79 > > Well, for the moment, I am. Of course, since I'm one of the people who
80 > > let the Foundation's charter get revoked, that's probably not a good
81 > > thing, but that's what we have right at the moment. Who am I? I'm one
82 > > of the two Trustees who hasn't resigned. (The other is pauldv.) I'm
83 > > also one of the original Trustees from when the Foundation was
84 > > incorporated. During that initial period I was made the Secretary of
85 > > the Foundation so that I could establish banking (which requires that
86 > > the Secretary sign the forms), and in 2005 I was chosen by the
87 > > then-newly-elected Trustees to be the President of the Foundation. The
88 > > important part from the above is that I had the legal authority to sign
89 > > the application for reinstatement that I mailed earlier today.
90 > >
91 > > Could somebody else be in charge?
92 > > ---------------------------------
93 > >
94 > > Yes, but it would take some time.
95 > >
96 > > The Foundation has members. Those members could set up an election,
97 > > vote out the current bums, and choose new, more dedicated folks to run
98 > > things. Who are these members? It's anybody who voted in a previous
99 > > Trustee election, and all current Gentoo devs who have been a developer
100 > > for one year at the closing of the election poll and actually vote in
101 > > the election. The Gentoo Foundation has a _lot_ of members.
102 > >
103 > > An alternative is for the existing Trustees to appoint new trustees to
104 > > fill the gaps left by those Trustees who have left. That would take
105 > > less time, but I'd feel much better doing that if new elections were
106 > > scheduled to occur within a reasonable amount of time.
107 > >
108 > > What happened to the SFLC?
109 > > --------------------------
110 > >
111 > > Weren't we going to consider joinging the Software Freedom Law Center's
112 > > Software Freedom Conservancy (http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/)?
113 > > Yes, and the SFC was, and still is, interested (as of just a few days
114 > > ago, anyway), although they have some concerns about managing the legal
115 > > aspects of an entire distribution. (Gentoo would be larger, by far,
116 > > than any of their current member projects.) I still think that's the
117 > > right way to go, although it's ultimately going to depend on what the
118 > > Foundation's members want. The bottleneck right now is the assembly of
119 > > documents that the SFC needs to go forward:
120 > >
121 > > * Certificate of Incorporation (or analogous document for your org)
122 > >
123 > > * Existing By-Laws for the Organization
124 > >
125 > > * List of Directors (and historical list of previous directors, if
126 > > available)
127 > >
128 > > * List of Officers (and historical list of previous officers, if
129 > > available)
130 > >
131 > > * Minutes from all Board meetings for the last three years
132 > >
133 > > * All Board Resolutions passed by the Directors
134 > >
135 > > * Membership meeting minutes (if your organization is a membership
136 > > organization)
137 > >
138 > > * All Membership Resolutions (if your organization is a membership
139 > > organization)
140 > >
141 > > * All annual reports (published, or filed with any state or federal
142 > > agency)
143 > >
144 > > * All audited annual finanicals (if any were audited and/or filed)
145 > >
146 > > * All financial reports of any kind for the last three years
147 > >
148 > > * Copy of all state and/or federal filings (particularly including but
149 > > not limited to tax-related filings) for the last three years. In
150 > > particular, be sure to include:
151 > >
152 > > + the IRS determination letter for the status of your filing
153 > >
154 > > + Your IRC Form 1023 filing
155 > >
156 > > * List of any ongoing threats of litigation, or other disputes, and
157 > > documentation of any resolved past litigation
158 > >
159 > > * A list of all assets currently held by the organization (including
160 > > backup documentation, such as copy of bank statements, etc.)
161 > >
162 > > + Include a copy of *all* bank statements for the last year
163 > >
164 > > * Any contracts that the organization has executed in the last three
165 > > years (plus any older than that if they remain active)
166 > >
167 > > * A list of any outstanding loans, leans, or other debts held by the
168 > > Organization
169 > >
170 > > Much of this stuff needs to be assembled by me (because I have most of
171 > > the docs), and I got rather busy the last six months and didn't do any
172 > > of it. I'm going to try to pull together as much as possible this
173 > > weekend, but I could use help on a couple of items. Our sponsored ads
174 > > on www.gentoo.org presumably constitute contracts of some sort, so if we
175 > > have anything in writing I could use a copy. Our major tangible assets
176 > > are the various gentoo boxes that we have, so a list of those would be
177 > > helpful. I vaguely remember that once upon a time we fired a dev who
178 > > then threatened to sue us (but never did, fortunately). Nonetheless,
179 > > we'd best include that info as well. Help from devrel on that one,
180 > > please? I'd like to have all of this stuff sent to the SFC on Monday,
181 > > if at all possible.
182 > >
183 > > Looking forward
184 > > ---------------
185 > >
186 > > So, what's next?
187 > >
188 > > We need new Trustees. I don't think anybody will disagree there.
189 > >
190 > > We need to decide (again) what the role of the Foundation should be.
191 > > Currently, the Foundation exists to handle Gentoo's financial matters,
192 > > protect and defend Gentoo's trademarks and other intellectual property,
193 > > and provide ownership of various "hard" assets, such as the various
194 > > Gentoo server boxes. The Foundation has almost no influence right now
195 > > over actual Gentoo (the OS) development. The only caveat there is that
196 > > Gentoo needs to satisfy the requirements of a non-profit organization,
197 > > and it's the Foundation's job to let the Council know if something is
198 > > happening that might threaten the Foundation's non-profit status. I
199 > > believe that this role is what the majority of the Foundation's members
200 > > actually want, and it's one that I believe would be even better served
201 > > by having the SFC handle it instead of us. That said, there has been a
202 > > lot of support for what drobbins has proposed
203 > > (http://blog.funtoo.org/2008/01/here-my-offer.html), which would make
204 > > the Foundation responsible for the health and direction of Gentoo as a
205 > > whole. That's a discussion that's certainly worth having, and
206 > > gentoo-nfp@g.o is standing by.... Let's try not to take forever
207 > > having this discussion, so consider Monday, 23:59 UTC, to be a deadline
208 > > for your electronic voice to be heard.
209 > >
210 > > What about drobbins' proposal?
211 > > ------------------------------
212 > >
213 > > I'd like to push off until Monday any actual decision, so that the above
214 > > discussion can happen first. I don't think drobbins will mind the
215 > > delay, although he's not around right now for me to check first.
216 > > --
217 > > Grant Goodyear
218 > > Gentoo Developer
219 > > g2boojum@g.o
220 > > http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
221 > > GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
222 > >
223 > --
224 > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
225 >
226 >
227 --
228 gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list