Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman)

[Aaron Bauman]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:58:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:34 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > Spinning up a new NFP and directing future donations there seems
> > OK. Moving the residue of assetts there after the tax liability is
> > known is OK too. Thats the formal winding up
>
> ++
>
> Really, though, I don't see the reason to even move at that point.  I
> could see moving to an umbrella.  I could see not moving at all.  I
> don't see the point in spinning up one non-profit and shutting down
> the current one.  That is, unless the new state gives us some legal
> advantage, or if it gives us a better chance of getting 501c3 status.
> If we aren't getting either benefit then we're just doing a lot of
> paperwork.  If this is just about bylaws/articles/etc, then we can
> change those without moving.
>

Look at it as "freezing" in a point in time.  We would stop
contributions to the old NM foundation in favor of not being taxed on
contributions to the new.  We will self-declare (the first year) for the
new Foundation and during that time file the appropriate paperwork with
the IRS.  That is the immediate benefit.

As I have stated, the other pieces (by-laws, etc)  are just by-products
of making the move.  It is nothing we couldn't do now.

> >
> > As long as the trustees can continue to reject incomplete applications
> > for funding, even from the council, there is no problem.
> >
>
> I think that any legal entity is going to have to do reasonable care,
> and the officers/directors of that entity are responsible to see that
> it happens.  That is, they need to verify that the expenditure is
> legal and basically aligned with the goals of the org.  Any umbrella
> org is going to be the same.
>
> I do think it is important to define expectations around these reviews
> depending on the model we choose.  Is the Foundation/umbrella/etc just
> checking to see if the request meets the minimum legal standards?  Or
> are they also doing a more strategic evaluation?  That is, are they
> asking "can we legally spend $5k on hardware signing devices?"  Or are
> they asking "will spending $5k on hardware signing devices be a better
> use of money than saving that $5k so that we can later spend it on
> newspaper ads for Gentoo?"  The former is probably what an umbrella
> would do.  The latter is more like what the Foundation technically
> does today, though we have so few requests for funding and the
> requests tend to be small enough that they don't tend to turn them
> down for that sort of reason.  What governance body do we want making
> the decisions around prioritization?
>

The umbrella would advise whether things are legal or not, but I would
offer that it is common sense as to what is legal and is not
legal.  Sure, we could find some border line examples and corner cases,
but let's not.

I am saddened by how few funding requests we do have. I would also want
to advertise, educate, and ask that members request more funding for
projects etc.

I would also like to explore a scenario like GSoC, but from the Gentoo
Foundation.  This would need a separate thread and is not an immediate
concern.

> I'm not really taking a side as far as this argument goes.  I'm just
> pointing out that this is the sort of thing that we'd benefit from
> clearing up, so that we don't have two bodies disagreeing on
> priorities.  When it comes to legal requirements I suspect there will
> be fewer disputes, and in any case I don't think the
> officers/directors can legally divorce themselves of their duties
> here.
>
> --
> Rich
>

I hope it has not been perceived as anyone divorcing themselves of their
duties.
-- 
Cheers,
Aaron