Subject: [Fenics] FEniCS Foundation

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 22:46:01 +0200

At FEniCS'10, we discussed the possibility of setting up a FEniCS
Foundation. The purpose would be to have a more formal organization
that would be responsible of the following items:

  1. Owning the domain name(s)

  2. Having some funds

  3. Distribute the funds (workshops, domain names etc)

The other option would be to continue with our current ad hoc
organization which has worked fine so far.

If we decide to set up a foundation, I can arrange the paperwork. It
doesn't look so complicated. I'll get back with more information if we
decide this is a good idea.

So I'd like to ask everyone to state their opinion. Is this a good
idea? Or not.

--
Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:20:50 +0100

>    1. Owning the domain name(s)

OK. This would require someone or a 'host' organisation to administer 
the funds.

> So I'd like to ask everyone to state their opinion. Is this a good

It would be helpful to have an estimate of

- How much time would be required to set-up and administer a foundation

- Any cost involved

Garth

> --
> Anders
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : [email-masked]
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:59:50 +0200

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:20:50AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> OK. This would require someone or a 'host' organisation to
> administer the funds.

I've looked at how to set up a "Stiftelse" (Foundation) in Sweden. It
doesn't seem too complicated. The foundation owns itself so no one
would need to host or hold the funds. We would set up a bank account
in the name of the foundation.

Access to the funds would be controlled by the board of the foundation
and we would have regular elections to decide who should be on the
board.

The work involved would be to write a document that describes the
purpose of the foundation. This is the "founding document". Someone
would need to be "founder" but that person has no control over the
foundation other than what is specified in the founding document,
which would need to say that the foundation is run by the board.

--
Anders

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:16:52 +0200

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:28:34PM +0200, Johan Hoffman wrote:
> Ok, so it seems possible without too much work, if we think it is a good
> idea.
>
> Other input to evaluate the idea would be: (i) What are possible models to
> elect the board?

My suggestion would be this:

1. Organize a list of members. Anyone who is a developer or has
otherwise contributed to the project can be a member, but they would
need to actively list themselves as members and pay a small fee. This
would automatically handle the case of members going out of scope
(since they would not pay the fee).

2. Members nominate themselves for the board.

3. Members vote on nominees.

> And (ii) what would be in a founding document?

Someone would need to sit down and write something up. We could set up
a wiki page to get a rough outline. Then someone can edit for
consistency and send it out for approval on the mailing list.

We need to be careful when writing that document since that everything
we do from there on (at least with the funds, it has no say about what
kind of code we write) must agree with that document.

--
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:53:20 -0700

The Software Freedom Conservancy 

  <http://sfconservancy.org>

might be an alternative. It seems like an organisation that take care of at 
least some of the things you mention. 

  <http://sfconservancy.org/overview>

Several opens source projects use its service. The most noteable:

  Samba, Mercurial, SWIG, Boost, BusyBox, Wine

Johan

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:22:04 +0200

That might be a good option. We could use an already existing
organization instead of inventing and maintaining it ourselves in the
same spirit as the move to Launchpad.

Both Mercurial and Boost are listed which is a good indication. I also
found Eben Moglen in the board of directors.

A couple of things remain unclear:

1. I couldn't find any clear description of who controls the funds. It
just says 'project' but there are many of us so it might sometimes be
unclear who speaks for the project.

2. Can we also assign domain names to the conservancy?

--
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:42:31 -0700

> same spirit as the move to Launchpad.

Exactly.
 
> unclear who speaks for the project.

That might be a problem _we_ need to solve before we approach such an 
organisation?

> 2. Can we also assign domain names to the conservancy?

I do not know. I suggest writing an email to them.

Johan

> > might be an alternative. It seems like an organisation that take care of
> > at least some of the things you mention.
> >