From: Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:25:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180718202503.GA9075@monkey> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_m63TaH1r93rNppHo4dnRZPka-OofKgmn86-GP_McmnMw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3808 bytes --]
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:58:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:34 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Spinning up a new NFP and directing future donations there seems
> > OK. Moving the residue of assetts there after the tax liability is
> > known is OK too. Thats the formal winding up
>
> ++
>
> Really, though, I don't see the reason to even move at that point. I
> could see moving to an umbrella. I could see not moving at all. I
> don't see the point in spinning up one non-profit and shutting down
> the current one. That is, unless the new state gives us some legal
> advantage, or if it gives us a better chance of getting 501c3 status.
> If we aren't getting either benefit then we're just doing a lot of
> paperwork. If this is just about bylaws/articles/etc, then we can
> change those without moving.
>
Look at it as "freezing" in a point in time. We would stop
contributions to the old NM foundation in favor of not being taxed on
contributions to the new. We will self-declare (the first year) for the
new Foundation and during that time file the appropriate paperwork with
the IRS. That is the immediate benefit.
As I have stated, the other pieces (by-laws, etc) are just by-products
of making the move. It is nothing we couldn't do now.
> >
> > As long as the trustees can continue to reject incomplete applications
> > for funding, even from the council, there is no problem.
> >
>
> I think that any legal entity is going to have to do reasonable care,
> and the officers/directors of that entity are responsible to see that
> it happens. That is, they need to verify that the expenditure is
> legal and basically aligned with the goals of the org. Any umbrella
> org is going to be the same.
>
> I do think it is important to define expectations around these reviews
> depending on the model we choose. Is the Foundation/umbrella/etc just
> checking to see if the request meets the minimum legal standards? Or
> are they also doing a more strategic evaluation? That is, are they
> asking "can we legally spend $5k on hardware signing devices?" Or are
> they asking "will spending $5k on hardware signing devices be a better
> use of money than saving that $5k so that we can later spend it on
> newspaper ads for Gentoo?" The former is probably what an umbrella
> would do. The latter is more like what the Foundation technically
> does today, though we have so few requests for funding and the
> requests tend to be small enough that they don't tend to turn them
> down for that sort of reason. What governance body do we want making
> the decisions around prioritization?
>
The umbrella would advise whether things are legal or not, but I would
offer that it is common sense as to what is legal and is not
legal. Sure, we could find some border line examples and corner cases,
but let's not.
I am saddened by how few funding requests we do have. I would also want
to advertise, educate, and ask that members request more funding for
projects etc.
I would also like to explore a scenario like GSoC, but from the Gentoo
Foundation. This would need a separate thread and is not an immediate
concern.
> I'm not really taking a side as far as this argument goes. I'm just
> pointing out that this is the sort of thing that we'd benefit from
> clearing up, so that we don't have two bodies disagreeing on
> priorities. When it comes to legal requirements I suspect there will
> be fewer disputes, and in any case I don't think the
> officers/directors can legally divorce themselves of their duties
> here.
>
> --
> Rich
>
I hope it has not been perceived as anyone divorcing themselves of their
duties.
--
Cheers,
Aaron
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-18 20:25 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 [this message]
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
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=20180718202503.GA9075@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