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

[Marc-Antoine Ruel]

2013/3/17 Dustin J. Mitchell <dustin at v.igoro.us>

> 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.
>

Sorry I can't parse your last sentence. As a matter of fact, I think it'd
affect more Mozilla than Google at that point. I think a percentage, like
"less or equal than 40%" would be better, so that 2 out of 5 could be from
a single employer.

Beside that, I'm fine with it with the templace with SSPC..

M-A

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.
>
> 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.
>
>  - 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.
>
> Dustin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
> _______________________________________________
> Buildbot-devel mailing list
> Buildbot-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/buildbot-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://buildbot.net/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130319/31afd938/attachment.html>