On 16-Jul-09, at 3:31 PM, Nils Kneuper wrote: > > Okay, I'd say: get it going! > > Short question: do you have a definition of the tasks associated to > the posts at > hand? Just assume that I am not well into the whole company stuff > and don't know > about the tasks each has to do. > President: responsible for the day to day operation. Treasurer: responsible for the financial aspects of operation, including the preparation of a financial report. Secretary: responsible for maintaining the foundation's records, including taking meeting minutes and distributing them to members. Also responsible for arranging meetings. Directors on the board; participation in meetings and voting.
>> The President and Secretary has defined roles under law, but I would >> propose that the third director be nominated as a treasurer to ensure >> financial matters are handled properly. The Texas law also requires >> us >> to hold regular meetings, but this should not be a problem given our >> present organizational structure. I suggest we use developers as a >> voting group if we need to adjudicate issues and for appointments. It >> does not need to be a stringent voting system. I think we can use a >> simple acclamation system unless there seems to be real deadlock >> over an >> issue or appointment. > > If we have to define a fixed system for solving stuff I'd propose > this: > The issue has to be brought up on the dev-ml. After this every > developer > (developer is defined as in "every person that currently has commit > access") has > the right to "vote" on the proposal. To have a proposal accepted at > least one of > the directors has to be for it and the majority of votes has to be > for it. At > least three votes have to be sent in supporting the subject. > (Example: > * 5 votes overall, 3 pro, one of those a "director": accepted > * 2 votes overall, 2 pro, two directors: not accepted > * 3 votes overall, 3 accepted, no director: not accepted > * ... > > This way we would have a specified voting systems for cases where it > is > required. Voting could take place either in the (logged) irc chan > #wesnoth-dev > or on the ML, probably the ML would be the better solution. > Actually this wouldn't work. First off we have to register all of the directors. Given the large membership of the development community and its fluidity, that makes it wholly impractical. Second, while this sound's all great, I actually think this would have a more negative effect on our development, making everything a vote that is based on an complex voting system. As I said, incorporation has nothing to do with actual development work, and the proposed structure will affect little substantively. Three to five directors with Dave as the president really doesn't change much from what we do now; he's pretty much had the last word on most administrative decisions concerning wesnoth anyways. > What exactly are the additional benefits of "501(c)(3) status"? It > is basically > a case of zero tax on all income we have (currently ads on the > website as well > as GSOC mentor money), right? Beside this people donating stuff can > claim this > on their very own tax (and we don't have to pay taxes on this money > either). > Basically yes to all of those, but it also places some restrictions on our financial activities regarding profits, which we're unlikely ever to break given our relatively meager resources and the fact we don't offer a salary to any members. > For a scholarship with students from outside the US we still have to > withhold/pay taxes, right? Yes. > >> I'd like to get moving on this as soon a possible, so unless >> anybody has >> some immediate concerns as to why we shouldn't go down this path we >> should start implementation by monday of next week. We would need to >> appoint the three positions asap, so let me nominate two individuals >> right now; David White for President and Turuk as a director and >> unofficial treasurer. Dave is an obvious choice for that position. >> Turuk >> has the best understanding of our legal status in the U.S. (having >> experience in this field and working in preparation of this proposal) >> and is among the most consistent individuals in dispensing his >> administration duties. > > Basically I'd say: get it going. Though I would also like to know > the formal > requirements we will have to fulfill after being incorporated. That > is stuff > like "how do we have to handle finances?", "which formal things do > we have to > send in regularly?" as well as "how often do we have to send in > formal stuff?" > We don't have to send in formal stuff after being incorporated; we have to pay taxes and open up a bank account in the foundation's name. The Secretary will need to take down the minutes and plan for upcoming meetings and distributed them afterwards. > What are the other things we will have to handle before we can be > incorporated? > Once we are incorporated please tell me the lovely stuff so that I > can update eg > the data at google (company adress, stuff like this...). > > Cheers, > Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpfqkIACgkQfFda9thizwUf0wCdE5xCASkFw5zfozWnELMX+vlF > XGIAoJND/01ieUVCmqkVoTuNpnSK5HAp > =s2Px > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
