| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:56:44 -0800 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > What about you have a closer look at for example the Debian project [1]? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > There, the project and its developer community is not organized in any |
| 9 |
> > legal entity. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > All business that requires a legal entity is organized via *mutliple* |
| 12 |
> > foundations [2,3] - none of which have any power over the project |
| 13 |
> > itself. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > This is exactly the model we have at the moment. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > So what on earth is the problem? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I suspect one problem might be: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 1) Most developers are not interested in Foundation affairs. |
| 23 |
> 2) The Foundation is often minimally staffed with enough members (to vote) |
| 24 |
> and trustees (to run the foundation legally.) |
| 25 |
> 3) In the past, the Foundation failed to renew its New Mexico filing (which |
| 26 |
> was fixed later.) |
| 27 |
> 4) The status of the Foundation with regards to the US tax organ (the IRS) |
| 28 |
> is decidedly unclear at this time (but its being worked on.) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> So there is some concern that the Foundation is not being run well in the |
| 31 |
> current system. Keeping the current system is worrisome (as a current |
| 32 |
> trustee, I certainly worry about it!) This is one reason why I think the |
| 33 |
> status quo is a bad idea. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks for clarifying. This brings the next question: how does adding |
| 36 |
more functions (== work) to Trustees improve the state of affairs they |
| 37 |
can't handle already? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
Michał Górny |
| 42 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives