| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 10:56 CST, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > I suspect one problem might be: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > 1) Most developers are not interested in Foundation affairs. |
| 10 |
> > 2) The Foundation is often minimally staffed with enough members (to |
| 11 |
> vote) |
| 12 |
> > and trustees (to run the foundation legally.) |
| 13 |
> > 3) In the past, the Foundation failed to renew its New Mexico filing |
| 14 |
> (which |
| 15 |
> > was fixed later.) |
| 16 |
> > 4) The status of the Foundation with regards to the US tax organ (the |
| 17 |
> IRS) |
| 18 |
> > is decidedly unclear at this time (but its being worked on.) |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > So there is some concern that the Foundation is not being run well in the |
| 21 |
> > current system. Keeping the current system is worrisome (as a current |
| 22 |
> > trustee, I certainly worry about it!) This is one reason why I think the |
| 23 |
> > status quo is a bad idea. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> But if *that* is the problem, it would be the logical step to disband |
| 26 |
> the Foundation and simply transfer assets to SPI [1,2], which is done |
| 27 |
> quite successfully by a number of important open source projects |
| 28 |
> including Linux distributions Arch and Debian. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It might be a logical step (I'm unconvinced it is the *only* logical step.) |
| 32 |
Hence this whole thread, no? :) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-A |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Best, |
| 39 |
> Matthias |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ |
| 42 |
> [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/ |
| 43 |
> |
Archives