| 1 |
On Thursday 15 July 2004 03:41 pm, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sorry for raising an unpleasant subject, but once an agreement becomes |
| 3 |
> fluid, it ceases to be an agreement, at least in my mind. If you don't want |
| 4 |
> to be a trade association, there's nothing stopping you from also ignoring |
| 5 |
> the plan for having developer-members. In fact, you can't have |
| 6 |
> developer-members with a federal charity since you can't place as much |
| 7 |
> restrictions on membership. What if I made a past commitment to have |
| 8 |
> developer-members to some Gentoo developers? Then this change from c6 to c3 |
| 9 |
> would amount to me breaking a commitment to the development team. I |
| 10 |
> explained in my email (that I forwarded) that the proposal I outlined was |
| 11 |
> an attempt to balance _my_ various commitments. I went forward with the |
| 12 |
> plan because I viewed it as a way to meet my commitments and also allow a |
| 13 |
> positive future for Gentoo. The goal of the plan was not to pursue the best |
| 14 |
> interests of any one party (including Gentoo, otherwise part of the |
| 15 |
> agreement would have me working as a Gentoo slave for the rest of my life,) |
| 16 |
> but to find a healthy balance. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
From what I have found, we can make developer-members in a 501(c)(3) as long |
| 19 |
as the bylaws for a 501(c)(3) were written correctly and restrictive. Again, |
| 20 |
I am fine with a 501(c)(6), but if your concern here is that we won't have |
| 21 |
any developer members, I can see why you would get upset. I think we all |
| 22 |
want an organization with developer members, and so far nobody has said any |
| 23 |
different. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-C |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team |
| 31 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives