| 1 |
On 2018.07.14 11:33, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 6:02 AM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Whatever the board decide to do they have fudicary duty to get value |
| 6 |
> > for money for the activities that they fund. |
| 7 |
> > That implies that if a fix costs $x, that's what it costs, |
| 8 |
> regardless of the |
| 9 |
> > long term outlook for the Foundation. |
| 10 |
> > The fudicary duty also implies optimising (not maximising) any |
| 11 |
> remaining |
| 12 |
> > funds to pass on to the Foundations successor. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> ++ in general. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> When it comes to following the law, you try to optimize what you spend |
| 18 |
> while still following the law. You can always cut corners and spend |
| 19 |
> less, but that simply isn't acceptable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Agreed. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> You can never compare the costs of a non-compliant process with a |
| 24 |
> compliant process. It will always be cheaper to just not pay your |
| 25 |
> taxes. You can certainly complain different approaches and their |
| 26 |
> costs if they both yield a compliant outcome. As I suggested the |
| 27 |
> optimal approach might depend on whether you expect the process to be |
| 28 |
> ongoing vs point-in-time. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I had more in mind its $X to become compliant in 6 months or $10x |
| 31 |
to do it in some lesser time. Its a value judgement at the end of the day. |
| 32 |
but it might be difficult to justify that extra $9x. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Also, if your goal is to move to an umbrella, it might not hurt to get |
| 36 |
> their recommendations and expectations up-front. Then you can ensure |
| 37 |
> that your solution delivers something that the umbrella will accept. |
| 38 |
> If you're on the fence between multiple umbrellas, or plan to use |
| 39 |
> multiple umbrellas, then you need to ensure you meet all their |
| 40 |
> requirements. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Agreed. Its really a two step process. Become compliant with the IRS. |
| 43 |
That is non negotiable. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Step two is stay compliant somehow. Either by running our own |
| 46 |
Foundation with professional help or moving to an umbrella. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I anticipate we will have to run the Foundation with professional help |
| 49 |
at least briefly, since any umbrella will need time to look us over |
| 50 |
after we are compliant, so the two options are not mutually exclusive. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> -- |
| 54 |
> Rich |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Regards, |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Roy Bamford |
| 62 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 63 |
elections |
| 64 |
gentoo-ops |
| 65 |
forum-mods |
Archives