Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:54:31PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:43 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
>> > * MJ Ray:
>> > > any donations to debian must be given to SPI; or
>> > Why do you think this is so?
>> Our Constitution, section 9.2:
>> Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
>> donations for the Debian Project must be made to SPI, which
>> manages such affairs.
>> I think this is rather outdated; when it was written, the only
>> organization that held money and property for Debian was the SPI. These
>> days there's more. There is no point in forcing people to transfer money
>> from, say, Finland to the US, just because of this clause in the
> I agree, so perhaps we should change the Constitution to match.
> However, since SPI does more than just holding our money (it also is the
> owner of the copyrights on our website and of (at least some of) our
> servers), I don't think removing SPI from the constitution entirely is a
> good idea.
> Perhaps a formulation like
> Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to an
> organization that has been vetted by the DPL to be allowed to
> handle such things in name of the Debian project, where no more
> than one such organization shall be vetted per country.
> Any property in hardware, trademarks, or in copyright will be
> handled by SPI, which is our legal umbrella organization in the
> might work. This would avoid having to update the constitution every
> time someone wants to create a new organization.
> Cc sent to -vote, because if we're going to update the constitution,
> this might be a good idea.
This should refer to another text listing the vetted organizations.
One outside the constitution so it can be changed as needed.