That sounds pretty reasonable.
On 10/04/2021 23:52, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Ricardo,
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:04:13AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> writes:
>>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:40:17AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> (Guix is also an example for a project where finances/assets are handled
>> by more than one legal entity.)
> GNU Guix did well and it has a backup already. That is good and was
> very forward looking. And if Guix wanted to setup a shared copyright
> pool they could using the legal entity they setup. But other projects
> haven't and are currently relying on the FSF for that and some of
> their assets or hosting. I really hope we can keep doing that, but I
> don't know we can or if everybody will want to.
>>> 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*?
> I think it depends on whether you believe the GNU Assembly should take
> up more responsibilties for the community setting up new resources or
> if we can keep relying on the FSF and the existing infrastructure
> various GNU projects are using now.
> So at the moment for gnu.tools Carlos deals with DNS and Andy makes
> sure the machine that hosts the list and wiki is payed for. And that
> is fine, I trust them to deal with that. But what if we want to extend
> our resources, setup a pagure machine or get some sourcehut
> maintenance contract? I am fine to pay for that personally. But it
> would obviously be better if we had an actual legal entity be
> responsible for it so that if any of us individuals has something else
> to do the organisation still keeps running.
> It might not be the most urgent problem to take on. We can wait and
> see if the FSF cleans up its board and we as GNU Assembly can start
> honest talks about the GNU/FSF relationship as we tried last year. I
> haven't given up, but maybe that makes me naive :) 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.