1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> Which one of the first things wrt to the Council that would be mentioned |
3 |
> in the Bylaws is the Council has full authority and veto power over the |
4 |
> project. That means the board nor officers can dictate to the Council. |
5 |
> Council remains on top of it all. Just legally declared, and with other |
6 |
> rules, regulations, etc, stipulated in detail. |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Would this run into any kinds of legal issues? Essentially you're |
10 |
creating a non-profit corporation whose governance is subject to what is |
11 |
effectively a board of directors that is very loosely defined/ elected/ |
12 |
etc. I'd think that this would run into issues legally, but I suppose |
13 |
that being a non-public company it might not be an issue. If you're not |
14 |
already familiar with such things you might want to talk to a lawyer. |
15 |
|
16 |
I'm torn on this. In theory the council and trustees/foundation should |
17 |
be well-coordinated and they're really just two parts of a single |
18 |
effort. However, for legal reasons the money-handling parts of the |
19 |
distro are subject to a lot of controls that need not apply to |
20 |
everything else. If we mix them we either need to formalize more of |
21 |
what happens, or potentially risk running into legal issues. |
22 |
|
23 |
If a lawyer doesn't see this as a problem then just disregard everything |
24 |
above. A little more formality might not kill the project, but on the |
25 |
other hand we don't want to create too many barriers to council members |
26 |
who are volunteers. In a more significant corporation like the Red |
27 |
Cross I suspect that board members would be paid to attend meetings. |
28 |
-- |
29 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |