On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:00:27PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > [mostly madduck and aba were discussing some details about german > association law and power structures...] > which reminds me of a problem / contradiction we had at DebConf13...: > - there is a legal entity, which claims to be responsible to be dealing > with all the money and expensives and holding the conference... said > association. > - and there is, "a Debian entity", these DPL delegated chairs which > according to the delegation are responsible how Debian assets are handled. > These two can contradict each other, up to the point were I felt useless > as chair as I was told (by a dc13 board member none the less) that the > dc13 board had the final say anyway. I think there are several simple operant principles here that, if applied consistently and kept in mind by all those involved, could greatly ease our handling of these problems in the future. - The Debian name belongs to the Debian Project, and not to anyone else (legally, the marks are held by the Debian TOs in various jurisdictions, on behalf of Debian). Using the Debian name, including for fundraising, can only be done with the approval of the project and its duly-elected officials (i.e., the DPL). - A precondition for Debian assets being transferred to an organization should be that the organization has a fiduciary duty to spend those funds according to the direction of the Debian Project. This includes donations given directly to an organization that's fundraising using Debian's name. Put differently: if someone needs a local non-profit for DebConf, this non-profit must conform to the rules for a Debian TO. - The consequence is that the board of the TO does *not* have the final say on decisions of how to spend Debian's money, because in all transactions involving Debian assets they are acting as agents of Debian, answerable to its normal decision-making processes. They *also* have a responsibility to make sure the uses are legal and responsible ones according to their own charter, but that means they have veto power, not autonomy. I don't know if this concept of DC15 being a fiduciary of Debian is captured accurately in its setup (bylaws or otherwise), but if it's not, that should be fixed. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature