From: Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:59:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180717205929.GA10507@monkey> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAr7Pr8EVUZ=hHSjjL7S7Gi0ac9m2M1Hb465bFVdA2ZMV_7QnA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]
> So my objection in private is the same as my objection in public. In theory
> the current board is accountable to the foundation members.
In reality, they are not accountable legally.
> The board (for years) has not operated the NPO properly. Assuming that we
> successfully shut down the current NPO and make a new NPO and transfer the
> assets from old to new; how will the new NPO operate better than the old
> one?
>
I can't garauntee anything. It is a risk we take, but as mentioned, I am
willing to help get it started. If it is kept up with it isn't overly
complicated.
Additionally, the new by-laws would *legally* hold trustees accountable
for failure in due diligence. Of course, that will probably slim down
the pool of available individuals willing to run for the seats.
Conversely, it will stop people just keeping seats warm.
> This remains the bit that is unclear to me. I get that the bylaws can say a
> bunch of stuff; but in the current system:
>
> 1) The board has been unable to file federal taxes; ever.
> 2) The board has been unable to keep proper books.
>
> Lets assume that this happened in the new NPO. How will the operation of
> the new NPO lead to resolution of these (or other unforeseeable) problems?
> I'd love to see a worked example / proposal; in particular, I want to see
> how it would be different from the current situation.
The by-laws I am working will make this clear. As a side note, the
umbrella can do this, but they contract as well. I suppose the
trade-off of "dues" to the umbrella and how much we pay a CPA etc is
worth consideration.
>
> -A
--
Cheers,
Aaron
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-12 20:18 [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman) Michał Górny
2018-07-12 20:34 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-16 21:21 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 18:01 ` Roy Bamford
2018-07-17 18:18 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-18 19:34 ` Roy Bamford
2018-07-18 19:58 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-18 20:25 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-18 20:43 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 18:21 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 19:04 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 19:15 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 19:29 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 20:43 ` Alec Warner
2018-07-17 20:59 ` Aaron Bauman [this message]
2018-07-17 21:16 ` Alec Warner
2018-07-17 21:42 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 22:03 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 22:15 ` Alec Warner
2018-07-17 22:50 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 21:19 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 22:08 ` Aaron Bauman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180717205929.GA10507@monkey \
--to=bman@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox