Corporate sponsorship ( was Re: Going passive )

[Mike McGrath]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:

> On 11/10/2010 01:09 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > 2010/11/9 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg at gmail.com>:
> >> On 11/09/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >>>> Would it be granted equal amount of seats to appoint members or more that is
> >>>> if it funded more and would it have the rights to appoint the veto member (
> >>>> FPL )?
> >>> If we were to have a sponsor of equivalent stature to Red Hat,
> >>> undoubtedly as terms of such sponsorship (or really membership if to
> >>> be considered equal), the layout of the Board and privileges would get
> >>> re-evaluated.  Given no one is stepping forward to offer several $M
> >>> US, I don't want to travel too far down this hypothetical scenario.
> >> Hum not following you're reasoning here I would think the layout of the
> >> board and privileges would need to exist before hand but not get
> >> re-evaluated afterwards for those wanting to become members equivalent
> >> stature to Red Hat and willing to aid in future grow of the project.
> > To put it simply.. at the point where a company, organization,
> > demigod, etc were to say it wanted to put in large amounts of
> > resources into Fedora then there would be the need for a legal
> > arrangement to be done. The funding would have to be ongoing versus
> > one-term, there would be assumption of liability issues, and various
> > other legal requirements with the probability that "Fedora" would
> > become some sort of new entity (corporation, non-profit) that would
> > fall under a legal framework of wherever that occurred. [Actually
> > multiple frameworks as any organization would need to be founded in
> > each country to deal with employment, taxes, legal rights, etc]
> >
> > At which point any present board, policies, layout of groups etc would
> > be completely rewritten to match laws for all such 'entities'. So
> > looking at current layout of anything dealing with fedora and
> > comparing it to a possible future becomes 'flawed'. Does that better
> > explain
>
> Yup.
>
> For some reason I had it in my head we already where a bit more in
> depended from Red Hat.
>

Tried, failed - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundation

	-Mike