| 11 Apr 2024 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.org
it's all complicated. but I just wanted to entertain the thought of being able to formalize some kind of election process for rotating board members from the community; legally speaking. IDK if it's a serious option that can actually be implemented. for what it's worth, I think this is entirely possible under a stichting too | 11:55:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it merely needs to be defined as such in a statute change, to be binding | 11:55:26 |
 delroth | The NixOS DAO™ /s (don't hurt me) | 11:55:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | just checked and the filings for the NixOS Foundation contain the statute that makes statute changes possible | 11:57:39 |
 Arian | I don't think a stichting can have other members than the board members. Legally speaking? I thought that was the main difference between a vereniging and a stichting. | 12:02:02 |
| delroth | I think that's right, but that just means that the question is whether the board can (via the statutes) submit themselves to a process that includes external parties | 12:02:56 |
| Arian | Ah gotcha | 12:03:06 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | yeah | 12:03:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | specifically, afaik stichtingen are fairly free to define their own selection procedure for board members, as long as there are board members, and so I see no fundamental reason why "a new board member shall be elected every X time from a selection of candidates meeting criteria Y" would not be viable | 12:04:12 |
| Arian | Because a vereniging both defines who is allowed to participate in such elections and what they're electing. That sounds useful to me.
It allows you to define both in your statues. | 12:05:49 |
| delroth | tbf since I believe none of us are experts (or even really initiates :p) in said legal topics, "I see no fundamental reason" doesn't mean much | 12:05:50 |
| Arian | Haha for sure. Big disclaimer. :') | 12:06:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | delroth: it's useful observation to the extent that it suggests it may be something worth investigating Properly(tm) :p | 12:06:56 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | ie. involving an actual lawyer | 12:07:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * delroth: it's a useful observation to the extent that it suggests it may be something worth investigating Properly(tm) :p | 12:07:11 |
| delroth | (or a notary, since IIRC they often take care of those things in NL) | 12:07:54 |
| delroth | (I think when we formed our Stichting we had a notary write the statutes with us, but that was 10+ years ago so who knows if I remember it right :) ) | 12:08:25 |
| delroth | (I rechecked and indeed, https://www.hkp-notarissen.nl/ is who we consulted with) | 12:09:24 |
| delroth | FWIW because some people might not have seen that there's discussion ongoing on other media, and since the foundation hasn't replied to the question explicitly yet - so far DetSys's answer to "are you working with Anduril" is "we can't say, we might have an NDA" https://twitter.com/grhmc/status/1778386025007460682 | 13:12:52 |
| delroth | so "we can't say" if the foundation board chair might be in a conflict of interest regarding Anduril | 13:13:11 |
 @eyjhb:eyjhb.dk | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
FWIW because some people might not have seen that there's discussion ongoing on other media, and since the foundation hasn't replied to the question explicitly yet - so far DetSys's answer to "are you working with Anduril" is "we can't say, we might have an NDA" https://twitter.com/grhmc/status/1778386025007460682 Quoting without quoting at all. | 13:19:18 |
| delroth | eyJhb: let's be reasonable here: there's no NDA that forbids a company from mentioning all of their clients and denying the fact that any company isn't one of their clients. These don't exist. So if the question might not be answerable due to NDAs, why do you think that is? | 13:21:12 |
| @eyjhb:eyjhb.dk | Have you never experienced a NDA that says you can't disclose you're working with that specific client? Or are you saying that there is no NDA stating that you can't state you don't work with a specific industry? | 13:22:28 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | eyJhb: what delroth is trying to say that this answer implies but does not state an answer | 13:23:21 |
| @eyjhb:eyjhb.dk | My comment was just, if you're going to quote someone in some way, you can at least just do what they actually wrote on e.g. X'er
Did you know this category of question is pretty much impossible to answer because NDAs are a thing?
| 13:23:28 |
| @eyjhb:eyjhb.dk | Instead of implying further things of what was maybe implied in some way. | 13:24:05 |
| delroth | but I want to imply further things | 13:24:36 |
| delroth | that's the whole point | 13:24:47 |
 Federico Damián Schonborn | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
FWIW because some people might not have seen that there's discussion ongoing on other media, and since the foundation hasn't replied to the question explicitly yet - so far DetSys's answer to "are you working with Anduril" is "we can't say, we might have an NDA" https://twitter.com/grhmc/status/1778386025007460682 Thanks, sadly Xitter won't show threads for non logged-in users 🫠 | 13:31:47 |
 pareto-optimal-dev | It feels like the underlying question here is:
Should someone that can't or doesn't answer whether they have conflicts of interest be in charge of a foundation? | 13:33:00 |
