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

[Alice Ferrazzi]

Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, 19:33 Rich Freeman, <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> 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.
>

If we are going to an umbrella we need first to understand what we want and
need from them.
than we can discuss with them, but just wait for their reccomendations
without a solid plan is counterproductive.