10:05 p.m.
Hi Ricardo,
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:58:32PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> […] But I do think it is important to start thinking about it
now and
> maybe start some discussion with some existing organisation like the
> Conservancy to see if they can help us out. These things will take
> months, so it might make sense to start the converstation early.
Right.
How do we decide the next steps? Is it premature to talk to the
Conservancy about whether they would be open to supporting a structure
where the GNU Assembly is not only a participating project but also an
umbrella organization for its member projects…? I’m not familiar enough
with SFC to understand if picking them as a legal home could send an
unintended message to onlookers (much like *not* picking the FSF could
be seen as disagreement with any of the things the FSF stands for).
Talking to the Conservancy is probably a good thing because they can
also tell us whether we are a good fit and maybe recommend another
organisation. See https://sfconservancy.org/projects/apply/
Many projects apply and subsequently decide not to join a
non-profit, or decide to join a different non-profit entity. Don't
worry about “wasting our time” if your project's developers aren't
completely sure yet if they want to join Conservancy. If membership
in Conservancy is currently a legitimate consideration for your
project, we encourage you to apply. We'd rather that you apply and
turn down an offer for membership than fail to apply and have to
wait until the next application round when you're sure.
If we merely want a legal entity for shared ownership of assets —
would
something simpler (like Guix Europe) suffice?
Maybe yes. If you don't count/want a shared copyright pool as
asset. And the charter matches what we want to do (I assume the one
from Guix Europe does). It probably also depends on whether the entity
has staff or if it is all run by a volunteer board. I cannot say how
much "maintenance" is needed for what we want.
Cheers,
Mark