Hi, Adding auditors to Cc, and quoting in full. On 25/04/14 at 17:51 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Dear Lucas, > > there have been discussions about the status of the DebConf 15 legal > entity and its status towards Debian. > > The two points of contention are > > a) handling Debian's money > b) potentially carrying "Debian" in the name of said legal entity, as > in "Debian Deutschland e.V." instead of "DebConf Deutschland e.V." > > For a) there are precedents of trusting the local organisation. Sure. But now that we have a process for establishing TOs, I'd rather use it. > For b), with my trademark team hat on, I don't see any issues even if > the organisation does not become a TO. As Brian disagrees and Joe has > not chimed in, we are tied within the trademark team as of right now. > > We do not have the time for long deliberations as an option with the > venue will lapse if we wait too long with signing contracts and as we > need the legal entity as contractual partner. What would be a suitable deadline for making a final decision and TO status and name? > Yet, I have become convinced that using "Debian" in the name will ease > sponsorship efforts. This means a higher chance of a balanced budget > and a larger travel budget. This directly benefits Debian. > > > As discussed in #debian-dpl, due to those time constraints, and in the > spirit of collaboration, I am hereby submitting an intial response to > the requirements for becoming a TO[1]. Thanks for that. I'm commenting inline, but could you please reply with a full new version suitable for sending to -project@? > If you think it unlikely that we will gain TO status please say no > sooner rather than later; we would rather do without Debian in the > name than lose too much time. I think that gaining TO status is a realistic outcome, and that we mostly need to flesh out some details. > All that being said: > > 1. The organization should share Debian's general visions > > We are (almost?) entirely made up of DDs, most of us have had Debian > in our lifes for more than a decade. > We agree with the Social Contract, the DFSG, and the Debian Constitution. Who is 'We', initially? > 2. The organization should remain loyal to Debian > > See 1. > Going against Debian's best interest now or in the future would not > only be stupid beyond description, it would also wipe out our > collective reputations. Is there a process that ensures that 'We' is unlikely to change, at least in terms of loyality to Debian? (e.g. ensure a minimum number of DDs in the board, etc) > 3. The organization should provide accountability on assets held in trust > > At a minimum, we will create yearly accounts and share this data with > Debian Auditors and anyone else the DPL deems useful. Would you agree to also send reports in a timely way, when auditors ask for them? > 4. The organization should be reliable, sustainable, and reactive > > We think we proved how quickly we operate. Many of us hold other > positions of trust. > As to sustainability, we do not know if this organisation will die > after DebConf15 or if we will use it in the future as well. This > decision will be made after DebConf15 and we will get the input of the > community and the DPL. > > 5. The organization should provide a reasonable financial framework > > We are aiming for tax-exempt status and are working with pro-bono > lawyers to make sure this happens. > > 6. Additional opportunities > > This is happening to make DebConf15 the best possible DebConf we can deliver. > > > On behalf of the DC15 team, > Richard > > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/TrustedOrganizationCriteria Thanks again, Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature