On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:27:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > > Which countries can have no suitable organisations?
> > I don't know, but I don't want to gamble on it not being an issue.
> I've looked into this in the past and every example country
> suggested so far, from European ones through to the Solomon
> Islands, had some form of tax-beneficial not-for-profit
> organisation. Arguably, a state without such an organisation is
> not a good place to store debian's money anyway. If you must,
> add some words like "or near equivalent" to it. The intent
> should be clear: BigRetailerCorp is not a place for donations.
There are more ways to get that done than through a hard requirement
that it must be a tax-beneficial not-for-profit organization.
I think it would be better to formulate a requirement that it must be a
not-for-profit organization, but leave the choice on the tax-beneficial
status to the people doing the actual organization.
> > > Could we at least require debian funds to be listed seperately
> > > on the accounts of any holding organisations?
> > I have no issue with setting requirements for money-holding
> > organizations; on the contrary. This would be a reasonable one.
> I look forward to its inclusion.
You need to talk to Manoj, then :)
> > > 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.
> > Yes, but that hasn't actually ever happened in practice. Sure, it would
> > make sense to have such regulations for money-holding organizations in
> > general; however, I don't see it as true to say "SPI has any say over
> > Debian money".
> I'm not aware of SPI refusing to distribute funds, but I
> have seen SPI's board first get relevant information which
> would not have otherwise been available. Is that "any say"?
> I don't know. It's a peer review and one that I don't think
> should be dismissed lightly.
Yes, you have a point there.
> > > and solves no problem which couldn't be solved by reminding some DDs
> > > of the current situation, instead of retrospectively modifying the
> > > foundation documents.
> > I disagree.
> Why? What problem does only modifying the foundation solve?
The problem that you need to pay a lot of taxes to get money from the EU
to the US, and then again if you want to use money in the EU for some
reason. You would need to pay import taxes and conversion costs twice
for no good reason. You cannot fix that by "reminding some DDs of the
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4