Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The DPL could 'unvet' the first one and then vet the second one. [...]
Even if it was vetted and failed, it was still vetted, unless there's
time travel. I suggest that the vetting limit wouldn't make sense.
> The point of the exercise is to avoid having so many organizations and
> so many bank accounts that we would need three professional accountants
> just to keep track. [...]
So why not leave it to SPI, who pay a bookkeeper and have learnt
from past mistakes, instead of requiring debian to duplicate the
bookkeeping which any good charity will already be doing? Then
debian only needs to ask one organisation for the status and
the job's done.
> > Don't you want to restrict eligible organisations, such as
> > requiring charitable-equivalent registration in their country?
> I don't think that's a good idea, as laws about that status differ from
> country to country; while it may be interesting in, e.g., the U.S. for
> an organization that holds Debian money to be registered as a charitable
> organization, the same is not necessarily true for all countries
> worldwide. [...]
Which countries can have no suitable organisations?
Could we at least require debian funds to be listed seperately
on the accounts of any holding organisations?
> > Do you really want to transfer power over the money from DPL+SPI to
> > just the DPL? Seems like a big reduction in scrutiny to me.
> Err, SPI has no say at all in how money is handled; it's the DPL who
> says "yes, please pay this bill" and then SPI pays. That's it.
AIUI, SPI will refuse to act illegally or to break its own
resolutions, which acts as a simple minimal scrutiny.
That is probably the same for any partner organisation,
but the rules of the partner may limit their responses.
> However, you do have a point. Perhaps we could define that any Debian
> Developer may ask for an organization to produce an overview of their
> recent transactions, and that it must allow (though not force) Debian
> Developers worldwide to become part of its organizational structure.
> Would that satisfy you?
The account listing would be a good step forwards, but I
think requiring DD membership may restrict the types of
organisation which could be used unnecessarily. Approval
should be more about whether the aims are compatible (including
that commercial traders should not hold donations too) than
whether DDs can join directly.
> > > Cc sent to -vote, because if we're going to update the constitution,
> > > this might be a good idea.
> > Please leave the constitution alone and fix those who are currently
> > in breach of it over donations - don't break the constitution to
> > match their bugs.
> I don't think it's a bug for Debian to be interested in having bank
> accounts in more than just the U.S. [...]
International transfer costs can be minimised by using SPI's
partner organisations. There is no need to amend the
constitution to do this. Just find more partners.
Debian is not a legal person. It cannot have any bank
accounts. So, who would be the responsible person if not the
SPI corporation? DDs? The DPL alone? Will this bar people
who are subject to legal restrictions on money management from
becoming DPL? (such as the EU and US "terrorism" bans on some
people, the anti-money-laundering laws, or national laws
against bankrupts and so on)
This whole change seems to introduce lots more questions, lots
more bureaucracy and solves no problem which couldn't be
solved by reminding some DDs of the current situation, instead
of retrospectively modifying the foundation documents.
Hope that explains,
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct