On 9 March 2010 17:41, Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
> At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>>On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <kbrown at mac.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
>>>> Ken> presence?
>>>>
>>>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
>>>> within the next few weeks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
>>>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
>>>
>>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your responses.
>>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
>>>
>>> Ken G. Brown
>>
>>You really want a "me too" response?
>>
>>Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize:
>>
>>Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known:
>>
>>       http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
>>
>>The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
>>
>>I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question.
>>
>>But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
>>
>>- Bert -
>
> It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.
>
> I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
>
> One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community;  'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?
>

Ken, i am not much fan of joining SCF, if you ask me. But if you vote
against joining it , you have to give people an alternative:
 - who will legally handle a tax-free donations to Squeak
 - who will represent us in court, to protect our intellectual property
 and many other things which i prefer to never hear about in my life.
But the problem is, that these things exists, no matter if i want it
or not :)

So, if you (or board candidate) know any better alternative, which
will cover these legal issues, feel free to present them.


> Thx,
> Ken G. Brown
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.