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 |