From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05498138334 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9AACE0872; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB13E0872 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (pool-71-163-21-11.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.163.21.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bman) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AEED335C6B for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:25:03 -0400 From: Aaron Bauman To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman) Message-ID: <20180718202503.GA9075@monkey> References: <20180717181818.GB11692@monkey> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="opJtzjQTFsWo+cga" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Archives-Salt: 93973bac-8ffe-46e1-9181-32c7b5d64bd9 X-Archives-Hash: d4e8d6f737df04fec1795426a90b5f6c --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:58:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:34 PM Roy Bamford wro= te: > > > > 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 >=20 > ++ >=20 > 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. > > >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 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. >=20 > --=20 > Rich >=20 I hope it has not been perceived as anyone divorcing themselves of their duties. --=20 Cheers, Aaron --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEiDRK3jyVBE/RkymqpRQw84X1dt0FAltPoh8ACgkQpRQw84X1 dt3RhggAjR5IcLcbEcTaIuT3r44nR9BsDP5nvL9Oqvgzc1VMklK8G7rS4LAixd/V /rrGqzcwNZks+IjcMpMF3XszbMi4W6RYjFuQLavrhoR+0E+riPNM40IJXASO5gIg xBcFV5ZS+HFE97ERygYh6dCtqlZ7IxNmzZAg7a5wTrK8Hj2GLN67G8RzJgPMBD+S tXAlHaGe5p2Cs9e762G+dmIzYooWWbeHcTHjffyTLUhktV/DxEiGweN48hFoSfpy aRPVL/iGiBVye9Nudg0b37Ywc3T2VzMpDtCy7K5EDWlojQNL17DLdsrP5HNfTJUB YiZSip1rlCjlvDtKZucCQbyeyzMFXw== =dIAD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga--