8:04 a.m.
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> writes:
Hi Ludo,
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:40:17AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
> > Having a fiscal sponsor, or a legal entity, is related to governance
> > to me because without it we cannot hold any resources. Then we are
> > just a bunch of hackers where individuals have DNS, pay for hosting,
> > individually collect money to hold a meeting, etc. Now I trust those
> > individuals and it is a form of governance, but it is very fragile and
> > you are totally relying on a few people to not go crazy or get drunk
> > on power :)
>
> I’m not sure. Some projects don’t have a “bank account” and thus no
> need for a fiscal sponsor (that’s the case of Guile and GSL, for
> example).
>
> For others, fiscal matters are not central to the project and dealt with
> separately, possibly by a separate team. In Guix, the “spending
> committee”, which approves spending from the FSF fund, is a group
> separate from co-maintainers (though with a non-empty intersection). By
> far most of the “governance activity” in Guix has nothing to do with
> funds.
>
> Perhaps Carlos can confirm, but I’m also pretty sure that toolchain
> maintainers don’t worry about funds in their day-to-day maintenance and
> governance work.
>
> All in all, I would rather let each project take care of its funds and
> fiscal sponsorship by itself (but the discussion on how to switch
> sponsors should be collective). Ideally there’d be a strong GNU group
> with its own fiscal sponsor, which could act on behalf its member
> projects. But we’re verrrry far from that. Let’s first save what can
> still be saved.
>
> WDYT?
I think you are a little naive :) Financials are important and I think
you are a bit hung up about the word fiscal, in fiscal sponsor. The
idea is that you do need a legal entity to "exist". A legal guardian
so the individuals aren't taking on all risks personally. A legal
entity who can receive fund, pay expenses, hold assets, etc.
I don’t think it’s naive to state that there are many GNU packages right
now that don’t *have* funds, reimbursable expenses, or assets. It could
be useful for them to have a legal entity that can manage the legal sido
of this for them eventually, just like it became useful for Guix when we
received USD funds, but I agree that it is not a *requirement* at this
point.
(Guix is also an example for a project where finances/assets are handled
by more than one legal entity.)
Now you might be right that some of the bigger GNU projects might do
this individually. But I think those should pool together with some of
the smaller ones then, or maybe we should do it as GNU Assembly so
that those smaller ones who think they don't need any resources can
actually get them, because the infrastructure must actually exist and
must be resourced.
Yes, though I think taking on this task and aiming for a solution at
this point would not be prudent given the state of the GNU project as a
whole. Is this really a problem we should take on *now*?
--
Ricardo