[kde-usa] KDE U.S. NPO

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jeff Mitchell <mitchell at kde.org> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 1:54 PM, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>> Hmm I guess this is where the problem is then. We don't currently have
>> a concrete proposal on the board's table that we can say yes or no to.
>> And it wasn't high enough on the priority list to follow up and get
>> such a proposal. Sorry :/
>
> Can you define "concrete proposal"? I know that there has been a lot of
> communication between me, Claudia, the Board, and Brad Kuhn about the
> SFC and what it would provide. I don't really know what you are looking
> for in such a proposal or what information you're currently lacking.
>
> It seems that the first question that the Board needs to consider is
> whether they want to shell out the money for the patent infringement
> indemnification for U.S. contributors that SFC provides.

Well that and things like how long it'd take roughly for requests to
be processed (extremely important for me personally as right now with
Claudia we have very direct influence on this which we'd likely lose).
What other benefits or drawbacks would there be? What would be the
requirements imposed on us in terms of new rules beyond the ones we
already have to adhere to? What would be the relation of this entity
to KDE eV? I have a more or less clear idea on this for Conservancy
through Amarok of course but that's it. The other board members don't
have that.

In terms of what I'd love to see in a proposal: All of the above
questions answered. Ideally comparing the 2 or 3 choices we might
have. This is quite some work but it'd make a quick decision by the
board much more likely and easy. The other board members might have
more questions but those are the important ones I can think of right
now that would influence my decision.

>> If one of the previous things is considered as such a proposal by you
>> then please do follow up on that again because at least I don't
>> remember one right that was a yes/no one.
>> Personally I'd absolutely love to see someone look into SPI as an
>> option closer if someone has the time for it.
>
> SPI is quite simple; it's just a pure money-hosting operation. No
> imposed fees, although they reserve the right to impose fees in the
> future. Pretty much all relevant information is here:
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/by-laws/
>
> I'm happy to shepherd something with SPI along, just as I've been trying
> to shepherd something with the SFC along (from well before they started
> charging mandatory fees, and with all the different conditions that
> we've tried to get them to agree to along the way). But until the Board
> makes some decisions, there isn't anything that I or anyone else can do.

You mean on the patent stuff? I am not sure this is the thing we
should base this decision on tbh. But if you think so I can try to get
you on the next board call to talk about this.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
KDE Community Working Group / KDE e.V. board member
http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org