1 |
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> As you have said before (I don't have a quote handy) that regardless |
4 |
> of the organisation we publish, US courts may see it that way anyway. |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
A US court would see the US org as the whole picture. A DE court |
8 |
would probably see the e.V. as the whole picture. It isn't actually a |
9 |
problem, IMO. |
10 |
|
11 |
Legally the Foundation would basically be the universe in a US court, |
12 |
and the Council wouldn't exist. However, in reality the Foundation |
13 |
would still be following the Council directives as long as they're |
14 |
legal. |
15 |
|
16 |
There wouldn't be any effort to explain the "real" org structure to a |
17 |
US court. The Foundation would just act as if it were the only org. |
18 |
It would have no legal relationships with any of the other orgs. If |
19 |
the e.V. were called into a court it would also act as if it were the |
20 |
only organization. How we manage them really wouldn't matter legally. |
21 |
The Foundation would be accountable for the Foundation's actions. The |
22 |
board would be elected by the members, though we'd probably want to |
23 |
align those members with the larger distro or otherwise try to ensure |
24 |
that the top-down model influences its operation. |
25 |
|
26 |
Legal compliance within the laws of each jurisdiction would fall |
27 |
inside each legal entity. The US Foundation would ensure it follows |
28 |
US laws. The e.V. would ensure it follows DE/EU laws. And so on. |
29 |
Just putting them in an org chart doesn't change that reality. It |
30 |
just gives the overall community a framework for how we deal with all |
31 |
this and how we might fit them into a larger strategy. Property owned |
32 |
by one of these entities would have to follow any compliance rules set |
33 |
by the entity. For example, an LDAP server owned by an EU entity |
34 |
might have to follow EU privacy laws (with safe harbor/etc that tends |
35 |
to be the reality everywhere anyway). |
36 |
|
37 |
Distro-level projects like PR, KDE, etc would just operate under the |
38 |
Council (with the usual hands-off-unless-there-is-a-problem approach). |
39 |
If they needed to spend money or have access to hardware then they'd |
40 |
talk to the appropriate lead (infra or the overall legal entity |
41 |
project) and they would fit the request into the global strategy and |
42 |
determine which legal entity should service the request and route it |
43 |
to them. If infra wanted the server in the EU and wanted the e.V. to |
44 |
fund it then they'd hand it to them, etc. There could be an overall |
45 |
project that manages all these legal entities that coordinates their |
46 |
actions, etc. Of course we don't need much overhead while we only |
47 |
have 1-2 legal entities. |
48 |
|
49 |
Individual legal entities would be simplified. They wouldn't really |
50 |
initiative distro-level work. They would just maintain the books and |
51 |
evaluate requests for compliance and issue checks. They would also |
52 |
maintain their individual budgets, and coordinate with the |
53 |
higher-level org or projects like infra so that they can come up with |
54 |
an overall strategy for things like where we want our hardware owned, |
55 |
or where we want to steer donors. We can't force donors to send their |
56 |
money to the org we prefer, but we could encourage it, because maybe |
57 |
for whatever reason it would be better to have more money going into |
58 |
the e.V. vs the Foundation. |
59 |
|
60 |
Another downside to this model is that we can't really move money |
61 |
around. If all the orgs were legally related (subsidiaries) then |
62 |
moving money would be straightforward as long as the right taxes get |
63 |
paid. With them being separate then money in one pot can't be moved |
64 |
to another. The flip side is that if one gets sued it will be much |
65 |
harder to get at the others. |
66 |
|
67 |
As far as the "two headed monster" issue goes, we present ourselves as |
68 |
having the Council in charge. Of course, in many cases outsiders |
69 |
would interact at a lower level (such as with PR, or a particular |
70 |
project). When the time comes for money to be handed around we ask |
71 |
the partner which entity they'd prefer to deal with, and then direct |
72 |
them appropriately. Other than not having a legal entity at the top |
73 |
it isn't actually very different from how many companies operate. |
74 |
When I deal with vendors at work all the time we talk about whether it |
75 |
makes more sense for them to be paid by our US entity or one of our |
76 |
subsidiaries. |
77 |
|
78 |
-- |
79 |
Rich |