1 |
On 5/24/08, William L. Thomson Jr. <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 20:56 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > You seem to want to run the foundation like a business.\ |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Well unfortunately the foundation is a business. Like it or not, just a |
7 |
> non-profit business. You really can't informally run a foundation. I |
8 |
> don't think it was ever meant to be a grass roots foundation. I think |
9 |
> many have had their own views of the foundation. But I think Daniel had |
10 |
> an initial concept, and that wasn't a lame duck foundation. Then again, |
11 |
> I don't 100% agree with all concepts there, but something in between, |
12 |
> sure. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
I don't think his 'dream' of the foundation is necessarily relevant. |
16 |
|
17 |
> > Please stop |
18 |
> > that. You are crossing the line where Gentoo should have something like |
19 |
> > it's own Corp vs Foundation worrying about money. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Even if you had a corp and foundation. The foundation would still need |
22 |
> to be run like a business. Just because it's a NPO and/or you call it a |
23 |
> foundation doesn't mean you throw operating as a business out the |
24 |
> window. As soon as you file papers, and establish a legal entity. You |
25 |
> have created a business and to an extent it should be operated and run |
26 |
> like one. Just not one focused on profit, one focused on other things :) |
27 |
|
28 |
What I think solar is trying to say is that there are a number of |
29 |
foundation members who view the foundation as just an IP holder. It |
30 |
exists because in 'meatspace' we are required to have a legal entity |
31 |
to hold shared IP. |
32 |
|
33 |
Not everyone wants to have tons of cash, corporate sponsors, large |
34 |
conferences, etc. |
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> Having a corp and foundation, would just be two business to run. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Now Gentoo, like many other foundations. Won't have "Bosses" per say. I |
40 |
> think many people are to worried about the power aspects. When really |
41 |
> these ideas are nothing of the sort. In fact any concerns wrt to power |
42 |
> can easily be addressed in the bylaws. As they should be. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> It has been said that things like GLEP 39, shouldn't be a GLEP but some |
45 |
> sort of a more formal document. I am not opposed to writing aspects of |
46 |
> the council into the foundations Bylaws. It's part of the foundation in |
47 |
> the sense that both are attached to Gentoo. Not part wrt to power, like |
48 |
> the foundation dictates to council. To clarify the councils purpose, |
49 |
> stipulations, slacker rules, etc. Those things should be declared in a |
50 |
> more formal document. As others have stated. I can't think of a better |
51 |
> place than the bylaws. |
52 |
|
53 |
I think you will find that a number of folks would disagree with |
54 |
putting anything like that in the bylaws because the foundation is not |
55 |
intended to have anything to do with development at large. It is |
56 |
intended as a IP holding entity; nothing else. |
57 |
|
58 |
I'm not saying that view is right or wrong and I wholly expect changes |
59 |
anyway; just be aware that a number of developers see things that way |
60 |
and that is why they are so concerned by all the 'businessy' stuff; |
61 |
since the foundation was not created to do those things (hence a |
62 |
second corp). |
63 |
|
64 |
> |
65 |
> In the bylaws we can easily specify that the council has veto, and/or |
66 |
> complete power over the board and officers. So anyone worried about such |
67 |
> things. Can move past those concerns now :) |
68 |
> |
69 |
> |
70 |
> -- |
71 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. |
72 |
> amd64/Java/Trustees |
73 |
> Gentoo Foundation |
74 |
> |
75 |
> |
76 |
> |
77 |
-- |
78 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |