[Buildbot-devel] Offer of membership to Buildbot into Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.

[William Deegan]

Dustin,

On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:36 PM, "Dustin J. Mitchell" <dustin at v.igoro.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell <dustin at v.igoro.us> wrote:
>>> The next step is to negotiate a formal agreement between the project and
>>> the Conservancy, which is called a fiscal sponsorship agreement (FSA).
>>> You can find a template of the agreement available on Conservancy's
>>> website at: http://sfconservancy.org/members/apply/ConservancyFSATemplate.pdf
>>>            http://sfconservancy.org/members/apply/conservancy-fsa-template.tex
>> 
>> I'd like to give folks a few days to read and respond with their
>> preferences here, and reasons for those preferences.  In particular,
>> before I state my opinions, I'd like to hear thoughts on:
> 
> Speak up, folks!
> 
> The major question here is the form of leadership.  I don't think we
> need to get too creative.  In fact, I think the first option - Simple
> Self-Perpetuating Committee - is adequate.  I'd suggest beginning with
> a three-person committee, although as written the committee can change
> that number (upward) with a simple majority.  I'd be amenable to the
> section option, avoiding employees of the same company, too.

Sounds good.

> 
> As for initial signatories, I think the easiest way to generate that
> is from the 'git shortlog'.  I'll take extra care to reach the members
> of MAINTAINERS.txt directly, but I think an email to all of the other
> committers, at their commit address, should be an adequate attempt to
> reach those who have made significant contributions.

Sounds good.

> 
> Tom and Bradley and I talked at PyCon, and sorted out a few finer
> points in the FSA language:
> 
> - Section 2(c) sounds pretty draconian at a first read, but isn't so
> bad.  Basically, it means anything done with Buildbot's name on it has
> to be done in Conservancy's name, and in accordance with the rules
> they/we are bound to.  We outlined some obviously-OK stuff
> (collaborating on a paper), some obviously-not stuff (doing business),
> and stuff we should consult with Conservancy on before getting
> ourselves in trouble.

Is it possible to clarify what that means for consultants who consult with clients on buildbot?
(For example me?)
Assuming there'd be no issues stating that I provide BuildBot consulting?

> 
> - The termination section is pretty complex, but basically boils down
> to this: if Conservancy decides to terminate the relationship,
> Buildbot's assets have to go to another 501(c)3.  We would have 60
> days to find such another 501(c)3, and another 60 days after that if
> Conservancy is OK with it.  As written, the assets would remain with
> conservancy if all of that fails, but we're looking at some alternate
> language that would transfer the assets elsewhere.


Sounds o.k. especially if you can get termination to donate any remaining funds to an appropriate existing 501(c )3
-Bill