Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nomination of Alec Warner (antarus) for the Trustee Election

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 6:02 AM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:
>
> Whatever the board decide to do they have fudicary duty to get value
> for money for the activities that they fund.
> That implies that if a fix costs $x, that's what it costs, regardless of the
> long term outlook for the Foundation.
> The fudicary duty also implies optimising (not maximising) any remaining
> funds to pass on to the Foundations successor.
>

++ in general.

When it comes to following the law, you try to optimize what you spend
while still following the law.  You can always cut corners and spend
less, but that simply isn't acceptable.

You can never compare the costs of a non-compliant process with a
compliant process.  It will always be cheaper to just not pay your
taxes.  You can certainly complain different approaches and their
costs if they both yield a compliant outcome.  As I suggested the
optimal approach might depend on whether you expect the process to be
ongoing vs point-in-time.

Also, if your goal is to move to an umbrella, it might not hurt to get
their recommendations and expectations up-front.  Then you can ensure
that your solution delivers something that the umbrella will accept.
If you're on the fence between multiple umbrellas, or plan to use
multiple umbrellas, then you need to ensure you meet all their
requirements.

-- 
Rich