On 18-04-07 21:01:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> 
> > Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the
> > project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement
> > between the foundation and them.
> 
> As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that. 
> However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered.
> 
> > Third,  I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two
> > accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money.
> 
> Incorrect. 
> 
> (And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that 
> out.)
> 
> Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a 
> similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors."
> 

Thanks for this, I haven't had time to catch up everywhere, this list
suddenly went into high traffic mode...

> > We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they
> > are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in
> > charge and both legally are.
> 
> That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think 
> you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit)
> 

Eventually, if the person thinking they were in charge (but not actually
in charge) were to do something intolerable in the view of the group
actually in charge, they'd be fired / kicked out.  The could possibly
extend to the removing of licencing/trademark privileges if any exist.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)