| 11 Apr 2024 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
otoh there's many e.V. I could name without having to do any research that I'm pretty sure have higher yearly budget than the Stichting NixOS if they are not a non-profit then it's fine. | 11:39:11 |
 delroth | the ones I'm thinking of are | 11:39:25 |
| delroth | and are even registered for tax deductible donations in germany | 11:39:36 |
| delroth | e.g. FSFE | 11:39:40 |
 Arian | The reason we spun it off is because organizing conferences comes with large financial risk (e.g. you need to cancel because a sponsor drops out and suddenly you have a 20k gap in your budget) and the amount that conferences cost to organize was way higher than what we had on the balance of the vereniging. | 11:40:54 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.org
I think a Vereniging could potentially be interesting. Where community members can pay to become a member and we rotate the board every year and people can vote for new board members (or in case of gross misconduct vote to fire them). But I think practically speaking it's super hard to operate with members that are not Dutch I would personally recommend against attempting to solve governance problems in an established community by switching to a vereniging; this tends to amplify issues because now people need to figure out novel group consensus procedures and the existing governance tensions | 11:50:48 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (I do generally prefer group-consensus-based organization over board-led organization, it's just the transition under the circumstances that I think would be unwise) | 11:51:52 |
| @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 |
