On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, MJ Ray wrote:
DeGroff, Amy wrote:
I've posted a brief outline or summation of LibLime's ideas about a Koha Software Foundation on the wiki -- we seek your comments -- http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Forming_a_Koha_Foundation#United_States
Please let me know if there is a more logical place to place these on the wiki - under Forming a Foundation / Locations for an Independent Koha Organisation/ United States seemed to fit the flow in place but I am happy to cross post or move if it will help.
A foundation 40%-controlled by Liblime doesn't seem independent to me, so I feel it should be moved, but I can't think of how to name where it should go. Does a vendor tie seem in keeping with a FOSS project host corporation to anyone?
it's actually very common, think about Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE to name just three. David Lang
I've added a comment to re-explain the difference between a foundation and an association.
I'll ignore the "intellectual assets" as that's against community policy. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Agreeing to any permanent representation on the board would open a can of worms because I expect all 30 or so current vendors would like something similar and several were giving to this project community before LibLime even launched. It's hard to measure how much, because I'm sure we've seen patches committed under the wrong author's byline. It would be a bit odd to give permanent credit for "standing" only to one company that bought the 2005-9 LibLime business, wouldn't it?
So I feel like PTFS's basic preconditions are obviously unworkable and this means we're at a more obvious and clear deadlock. Can anyone explain what I've missed and why I'm wrong?
Regards,