On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 02:23:02PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > > On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up > >> > > >> > >> How much time? We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the > >> books for a few years I think. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the > >> work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project, > >> and it doesn't end when the past is caught up. > >> > > > > I'm fairly confident we can fix the current tax problems (in the end, its > > a problem we can solve with money, and we have some money.) > > I'm less convinced the non-profit yields any value over other > > alternatives, and so from an effort-basis I feel its necessary to wind down > > and replace > > with something else. It sounds like this is the track to pursue. Vote forantarus as a trustee and make it happen. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the > >> > future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1]. > >> > > >> > >> Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them. Sure, but when did I say defer everything to them? > >> > >> The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the > >> Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work. Trustees > >> are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a > >> non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is > >> sufficient to be voted in). Should we be surprised when they advocate > >> for continuing to run a non-profit? > >> > > > > I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a > > trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights > > on.' > > Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am > > running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing > > the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point > > in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk > > with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will > > be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to > > happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers. > > Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly > > confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election. Rich, this argument makes no sense. > > > > > >> There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything > >> before working on a path forward. Just as individuals can use their > >> own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own > >> money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own > >> property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to > >> the Foundation. > >> > > > > I think some of the conflict is a result of communication style (America v > > European) and also the internet-based communication methods we use to meet > > and converse with each other. I've often pitched something else (audio or > > video) but have never reached consensus. This isn't to discount the actual > > area of conflict (e.g. Finances) but how ones communicate ones ideas > > matters a fair bit. This makes sense too. > > -A > > > > > >> > >> -- > >> Rich > >> > >> > > Just to avoid confusion, Alex, are you talking about dissolving the > > organisation that is Gentoo Foundation, Inc. as a non-profit corporation, > > or completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers such that the > > day-to-day organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves to the Council > > (*shudders*) or to another organisation entirely, with whatever baggage > > that ensues?! > > > > I mean the New Mexico Non-profit corporation would be dissolved. If Gentoo > continued to want to own its trademarks and raise funds, those functions > would have to be moved elsewhere. This is typically where an umbrella (SPI, > SFLC, or similar) organization comes in handy; but I don't intend to be > prescriptive at this time in terms of what the next steps are. Obviously we > have to figure that out prior to dissolution (because the Articles of > dissolution specify where assets go.) > > -A