| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> What about you have a closer look at for example the Debian project [1]? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> There, the project and its developer community is not organized in any |
| 6 |
> legal entity. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> All business that requires a legal entity is organized via *mutliple* |
| 9 |
> foundations [2,3] - none of which have any power over the project |
| 10 |
> itself. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This is exactly the model we have at the moment. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So what on earth is the problem? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I suspect one problem might be: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1) Most developers are not interested in Foundation affairs. |
| 20 |
2) The Foundation is often minimally staffed with enough members (to vote) |
| 21 |
and trustees (to run the foundation legally.) |
| 22 |
3) In the past, the Foundation failed to renew its New Mexico filing (which |
| 23 |
was fixed later.) |
| 24 |
4) The status of the Foundation with regards to the US tax organ (the IRS) |
| 25 |
is decidedly unclear at this time (but its being worked on.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So there is some concern that the Foundation is not being run well in the |
| 28 |
current system. Keeping the current system is worrisome (as a current |
| 29 |
trustee, I certainly worry about it!) This is one reason why I think the |
| 30 |
status quo is a bad idea. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-A |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Best, |
| 38 |
> Matthias |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> [1] https://www.debian.org/ |
| 43 |
> [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ |
| 44 |
> [3] http://debian.ch/articles_of_association.pdf |
| 45 |
> |
Archives