[Evergreen-governance-l] Governance Committee Meeting tomorrow?

[Dan Scott]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:19:04PM -0400, Amy Terlaga wrote:
> Hi all -
> 
>  
> 
> Just checking - are we still on for tomorrow's governance committee meeting?
> If we are, we'll need to keep it to just one hour since the IRC meeting is
> scheduled for 2pm ET.
 
Hi Amy:

The meeting time still works for me.

I did hear back from Bradley at the Conservancy regarding our request
for assistance in navigating the developer / library director waters;
the response was:

"""
I think the answer to you primary inquiry is "yes, Conservancy does
want to help figure out the best way to make sure that the leadership of
Evergreen is diverse and not overly influenced by a single corporate
entity".

I should be sending out offers for joining from the last round very
soon.  I'm sorry for the delay on that.  Once those are sent, we can
begin this discussion with the Evergreen community.
"""

FWIW, I haven't heard anything official one way or the other from the
Conservancy regarding our application; I imagine they will respond to
the governance list when they do respond. For those who don't know,
Bradley Kuhn left the Software Freedom Law Center to become the
full-time director of the Software Freedom Conservancy a few weeks back,
which is why a few things have been delayed. It's ironic, because the
reason he decided to become a full-time director of the Conservancy was
to be able to be more responsive to member projects - there is an
interview in Linux Weekly News with Bradley Kuhn at
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/409303/d0054fbeb4832a6d/ for those who
want more information.

One aside about the change from acting as a volunteer for the
Conservancy in his spare time, to being a full-time director, is that
Bradley will need to draw a living wage from the Conservancy - and
therefore I do not know how possible it will be for the Conservancy to
accept new projects that aren't willing to contribute some percentage of
their funds. I still think the Conservancy direction is the right way to
go - having a neutral third party hold assets on behalf of the entire
community makes sense to me, and there will be expenses associated with
bookkeeping, writing cheques, 501(c)(3) reporting, etc one way or
another - but we might as well recognize what the change in Bradley's
employment status means to our application. We haven't stated anything
one way or another about the percentage donation issue as of yet, so we
might as well start having that discussion.

Dan