When are we doing the next foundation meeting? I ask because I want to fix the survey with all of your comments so that we can get some answers post-research. If you answered the survey already - remember it's just a preliminary survey and you're supposed to be doing some research on the options - and discussing on list with everyone. Nicole
Nicole Engard wrote:
When are we doing the next foundation meeting? I ask because I want to fix the survey with all of your comments so that we can get some answers post-research. If you answered the survey already - remember it's just a preliminary survey and you're supposed to be doing some research on the options - and discussing on list with everyone.
A survey opened on the 19th that was said to be for two weeks, so that takes us to the 3rd Oct and I guess it'll take a few days to prepare a report on it, so shall we have a quick foundation item in the general IRC meeting that will be held on #koha on 7 October 2009 at 10:00 UTC+0 http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=meetingnotes09oct07 to cover anything we need to cover before running the second survey? Looking at http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=kohaheldbyfoundation I feel the following are missing:- 1. links to HLT and SFLC positions on FOSS; 2. voting membership fee info for SFLC; 3. links to HLT, IFLA and SFLC withdrawal/asset lock processes; 4. any cons for SPI. The aim was to complete the chart by tomorrow: can we? Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
Awesome! Thanks for the info MJ. One more question - so we want the final survey up before or after the next meeting - I'm thinking right after with a 1 week timeline on it and then a final decision. Nicole On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:54 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Nicole Engard wrote:
When are we doing the next foundation meeting? I ask because I want to fix the survey with all of your comments so that we can get some answers post-research. If you answered the survey already - remember it's just a preliminary survey and you're supposed to be doing some research on the options - and discussing on list with everyone.
A survey opened on the 19th that was said to be for two weeks, so that takes us to the 3rd Oct and I guess it'll take a few days to prepare a report on it, so shall we have a quick foundation item in the general IRC meeting that will be held on #koha on 7 October 2009 at 10:00 UTC+0 http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=meetingnotes09oct07 to cover anything we need to cover before running the second survey?
Looking at http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=kohaheldbyfoundation I feel the following are missing:- 1. links to HLT and SFLC positions on FOSS; 2. voting membership fee info for SFLC; 3. links to HLT, IFLA and SFLC withdrawal/asset lock processes; 4. any cons for SPI.
The aim was to complete the chart by tomorrow: can we?
Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
1. SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY. I have been communicating with people at the Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Software Conservancy and I am anticipating some answers to questions which I did not obtain a week ago at Software Freedom Day co-hosted by the Software Freedom Law Center in New York. I have asked about about what advantage the Conservancy has specifically and also about asset lock and project withdrawal procedures. The Conservancy has no voting or membership fee and project affiliation does not extend to voting on conservancy policies. The Conservancy is run by many of the same people who run the Software Freedom Law Center who have as old and as trustworthy a standing in supporting free software as anyone and running FSF. Conservancy projects run themselves and determine their own voting procedures. The Conservancy provides the non-profit status and other legal necessities so that the project can accept donations, etc. 2. WIKI ORGANISATION. Some of this information is in the text file but not in the table in the Koha wiki. I will try to reorganise the information so that is not missing from either representation and make it all readily findable in the wiki. Both pages should be in the 'en' language namespace to facilitate translation and linked to a common page on the foundation. 3. SOFTWARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I do see a problem which may affect all US based choices for an interim home for a Koha foundation including both the Conservancy and SPI. I only just noticed and do not know if it also affects the Conservancy. The SPI howto for managing an associated project has no consideration for transferring assets to a non-US organisation once it would be possible for a Koha foundation to become autonomous, http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html . "Your Liaison may decide that your project is quitting SPI at any time. Any assets and money held by SPI for your project may be transferred to the 501(c)3 US non-profit of your choice, or simply held until expended." Perhaps that is a legal constraint in the US for 501(c)3 organisations. The small long term risk of being a litigation victim in the US, especially over improperly broad software patents, may make the US a poor long term choice in the absence of changes from the courts or Congress. I am not suggesting that the US would be a poor interim choice unless there is a problem about freely or easily choosing a home country for the general project foundation long term. MJ, would you please try to obtain an answer from SPI about what possibility there is for transferring assets to a non-US organisation when a project would leave SPI? If there is no easy way around the issue, that would be a con for SPI and perhaps also a con for the Conservancy if it is a difficulty of US law. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
Thomas Dukleth wrote:
The Conservancy has no voting or membership fee and project affiliation does not extend to voting on conservancy policies. The Conservancy is run by many of the same people who run the Software Freedom Law Center who have as old and as trustworthy a standing in supporting free software as anyone and running FSF.
Conservancy projects run themselves and determine their own voting procedures. The Conservancy provides the non-profit status and other legal necessities so that the project can accept donations, etc.
So, SFC seems about as unaccountable to users and developers as the FSF. Slightly worse in fact: I think FSF have associates and fellows who sit on advisory groups that are consulted by the unelected board. SFC is a much younger organisation than FSF, but presumably it could also press on in a similar way (ignoring many user and developer questions) as long as it gets enough donations to sustain its basic administration. I think that's a bit worrying and asking us to take more on trust than we ought to, especially with a four-year-old opaque org. After all, like the sign by my prof's office said: in God we Trust - all others bring data. Is there data about the relative performance of member-led organisations and trust-style self-perpetuating groups? I suspect it depends how you measure performance, but maybe someone knows. [...]
http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html . "Your Liaison may decide that your project is quitting SPI at any time. Any assets and money held by SPI for your project may be transferred to the 501(c)3 US non-profit of your choice, or simply held until expended." Perhaps that is a legal constraint in the US for 501(c)3 organisations.
I think I've been told that it is, but I have no reference for it.
MJ, would you please try to obtain an answer from SPI about what possibility there is for transferring assets to a non-US organisation when a project would leave SPI?
I sent a request which should appear soon on the page http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.org.spi.general with any replies or comments linked from there, probably at http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.spi.general/917 Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
--- On Tue, 9/29/09, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote: [...]
http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html . "Your Liaison may decide that your project is quitting SPI at any time. Any assets and money held by SPI for your project may be
[...] transferred to the
501(c)3 US non-profit of your choice, or simply held until expended." Perhaps that is a legal constraint in the US for 501(c)3 organisations.
I think I've been told that it is, but I have no reference for it.
As someone who was involved with the founding of a 501(c)3, I am almost definitely sure this is the case. You basically have two options when it comes to financial and other assets: You can give it to another 501(c)3 or give it to the US government. That is the part of the price of admission to be able to take advantage of the 501(c)3 status. In reality though, this might not be that big of deal. If you raise millions, maybe, but I am sure there would be ways to transfer things like a trademark to another non-501(c)3 organization, although it may involve a lawyer or two. Edward
[Reposted with previously missed corrections.] 1. SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY. I have been communicating with people at the Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Software Freedom Law Center and I am anticipating some answers to questions which I did not obtain a week ago at Software Freedom Day co-hosted by the Software Freedom Law Center in New York. I have asked about about what advantage the Conservancy has specifically and also about asset lock and project withdrawal procedures. The Conservancy has no voting or membership fee and project affiliation does not extend to voting on conservancy policies. The Conservancy is run by many of the same people who run the Software Freedom Law Center who have as old and as trustworthy a standing in supporting free software as anyone as well as past involvement with running FSF. Conservancy projects run themselves and determine their own voting procedures. The Conservancy provides the non-profit status and other legal necessities so that the project can accept donations, etc. 2. WIKI ORGANISATION. Some of this information is in the text file but not in the table in the Koha wiki. I will try to reorganise the information so that is not missing from either representation and make it all readily findable in the wiki. Both pages should be in the 'en' language namespace to facilitate translation and linked to a common page on the foundation. 3. SOFTWARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I do see a problem which may affect all US based choices for an interim home for a Koha foundation including both the Conservancy and SPI. I only just noticed and do not know if it also affects the Conservancy. The SPI howto for managing an associated project has no consideration for transferring assets to a non-US organisation once it would be possible for a Koha foundation to become autonomous, http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html . "Your Liaison may decide that your project is quitting SPI at any time. Any assets and money held by SPI for your project may be transferred to the 501(c)3 US non-profit of your choice, or simply held until expended." Perhaps that is a legal constraint in the US for 501(c)3 organisations. The small long term risk of being a litigation victim in the US, especially over improperly broad software patents, may make the US a poor long term choice in the absence of changes from the courts or Congress. I am not suggesting that the US would be a poor interim choice unless there is a problem about freely or easily choosing a home country for the general project foundation long term. MJ, would you please try to obtain an answer from SPI about what possibility there is for transferring assets to a non-US organisation when a project would leave SPI? If there is no easy way around the issue, that would be a con for SPI and perhaps also a con for the Conservancy if it is a difficulty of US law. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 [...]
participants (4)
-
ed c -
MJ Ray -
Nicole Engard -
Thomas Dukleth