[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Details of fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy

[Amy Terlaga]

Dan writes:

 

[snip]

However, we don't have to exist in the mean time without the benefit of
being part of a 501(c)(3); based on the draft agreement, the relationship
with the Conservancy can be as lightweight as a temporary home that we can
leave in 60 days if another 501(c)(3) can receive the assets. I've checked
with Bradley Kuhn to ensure that would be okay, and he said "I really don't
get why people don't just use as that:

Keep debating the other issues while having a Conservancy membership, and
even move in forming the new org in parallel."

 

So, based on that, would it be possible to move forward on the governance
front in two tracks?

 

1) Short-term (e.g. next month?): establish an agreement with the
Conservancy that enables us to take advantage of the benefits of being part
of a 501(c)(3) and provides a neutral place for holding the Evergreen
collateral (trademarks, logos, domain names...). We would work directly with
the Conservancy to establish the ground rules for our agreement (as Bradley
offered when he sent us the sponsorship agreement - and which we have not as
of yet used).  Some projects simply nominate one person to act as the point
of contact with the Conservancy; it could be as simple as that. If we get
set up before the end of year, then Americans would be able to make tax-free
donations to Evergreen as a Christmas present!

 

2) Longer-term (e.g. in time for the next Evergreen Conference):

establish the complete set of rules of governance, including standing
committees, membership rules & fees, meeting rules, compensation, possibly
setting up a standalone 501(c)(3)?

 

Dan

****************

 

Yes, I am in complete agreement with you, Dan.  As a member of the interim
governance committee of the Evergreen Foundation, I endorse this approach.
I think we need something short-tem to protect the Evergreen collateral (a
nice way to describe it, btw), and if we got that in place now, we could
move forward on the longer-term goals of the Foundation.

 

Amy

 

 

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:24:52 -0500

From: Dan Scott <dan at coffeecode.net>

Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Details of fiscal sponsorship

      agreement for     Evergreen & Conservancy

To: open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org,

      evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org

Message-ID:

      <AANLkTikue_-u1A4AvyXBA0E5ocg2ga0vCEGahh5354aj at mail.gmail.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 

The Conservancy has added one new member organization since we received the
draft agreement, and it's not us!

(http://sfconservancy.org/news/2010/nov/10/pypy-joins/).

 

Based on the lack of comments, I'm wondering if anyone has looked at the
Software Freedom Conservancy draft agreement that I posted to the
open-ils-general list on October 21? At the time, I had suggested that we
try to collect a list of questions together by October 28th, a date that has
come and gone.

 

On the governance list, we've been doing some soul-searching about whether
to establish a small, focused foundation or a very broad foundation. In
principle, I'm not opposed to a foundation that includes a users' group,
various committees, membership fees, etc, but I worry that getting it right
will take a long time - and when dealing with a scope that broad, I would
much rather get things right and take a long time, than get things done fast
but fatally flawed at the outset.

 

However, we don't have to exist in the mean time without the benefit of
being part of a 501(c)(3); based on the draft agreement, the relationship
with the Conservancy can be as lightweight as a temporary home that we can
leave in 60 days if another 501(c)(3) can receive the assets. I've checked
with Bradley Kuhn to ensure that would be okay, and he said "I really don't
get why people don't just use as that:

Keep debating the other issues while having a Conservancy membership, and
even move in forming the new org in parallel."

 

So, based on that, would it be possible to move forward on the governance
front in two tracks?

 

1) Short-term (e.g. next month?): establish an agreement with the
Conservancy that enables us to take advantage of the benefits of being part
of a 501(c)(3) and provides a neutral place for holding the Evergreen
collateral (trademarks, logos, domain names...). We would work directly with
the Conservancy to establish the ground rules for our agreement (as Bradley
offered when he sent us the sponsorship agreement - and which we have not as
of yet used).  Some projects simply nominate one person to act as the point
of contact with the Conservancy; it could be as simple as that. If we get
set up before the end of year, then Americans would be able to make tax-free
donations to Evergreen as a Christmas present!

 

2) Longer-term (e.g. in time for the next Evergreen Conference):

establish the complete set of rules of governance, including standing
committees, membership rules & fees, meeting rules, compensation, possibly
setting up a standalone 501(c)(3)?

 

Dan

 

[snip]

 

=======================

Amy Terlaga

Assistant Director, User Services

Bibliomation

32 Crest Road

Middlebury, CT  06762

(203)577-4070 x101

http://www.biblio.org

----

Bibliomation's Open Source blog:

http://biblio-os.blogspot.com/

 

Join us on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=171935276419

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20101110/cd0012e2/attachment-0001.htm