Box-Admins Team Report for February, 2006

> I want to thank the community for the monetary support
> needed to fund these boxes and remind them that the bills continue to
> appear and that you can currently contribute to the hosting bills by
> going to
>
> http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/
>
> and clicking on the 'donate' button at the top right.  Note that a
> donation here may be used for other Squeak Foundation services including
> but not limited to development, development infrastructure, and
> promotion of Squeak.

> "Ken Causey" <[hidden email]> reported:
>
>> I want to thank the community for the monetary support
>> needed to fund these boxes and remind them that the bills continue to
>> appear and that you can currently contribute to the hosting bills by
>> going to
>>
>> http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/
>>
>> and clicking on the 'donate' button at the top right.  Note that a
>> donation here may be used for other Squeak Foundation services  
>> including
>> but not limited to development, development infrastructure, and
>> promotion of Squeak.
>
> Thanks for the report, Ken.
>
> Is there any way for us to see (at least a summary of) the books  
> for SqF? I
> mean, I don't want to see the nitty gritties of every transaction,  
> but I'd
> like to see when the kitty gets near empty, for instance. I  
> wouldn't _mind_
> seeing a so-much-money-spent-on-PR, so-much-money-spent-on-Foo.  
> That's just
> a nice-to-have though.
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Crowther
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:32 PM
>
> > From: Ron Teitelbaum
> > My vote would be for setting up the Squeak Foundation as a
> > Not for Profit United States Non-Stock Corporation,
>
> ... whereas mine would be to set it up somewhere with the most free laws
> regarding eg. crypto export and reverse engineering that we can find, in
> case of legal challenges to the foundation from (say) the USA.
>
> - Peter
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Latta
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:46 PM
>
> Hi--
>
> Ron writes:
>
>  > My vote would be for setting up the Squeak Foundation as a Not for
>  > Profit United States Non-Stock Corporation... I'm not sure why it
>  > needs to take a considerable amount of time.
>
> Well, if I we decide to incorporate in the U.S., we'd have to decide
> in
> which state to incorporate, and whether to apply for tax-exempt status
> with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and jump through those hoops.
> We'd probably want to choose and hire a lawyer and an accountant.
>
> That sounds like a considerable amount of time (and money) to me.
>
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>

>
> On 07.03.2006, at 08:18, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
>> "Ken Causey" <[hidden email]> reported:
>>
>>> I want to thank the community for the monetary support
>>> needed to fund these boxes and remind them that the bills continue to
>>> appear and that you can currently contribute to the hosting bills by
>>> going to
>>>
>>> http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/
>>>
>>> and clicking on the 'donate' button at the top right.  Note that a
>>> donation here may be used for other Squeak Foundation services
>>> including
>>> but not limited to development, development infrastructure, and
>>> promotion of Squeak.
>>
>> Thanks for the report, Ken.
>>
>> Is there any way for us to see (at least a summary of) the books for
>> SqF? I
>> mean, I don't want to see the nitty gritties of every transaction,
>> but I'd
>> like to see when the kitty gets near empty, for instance. I wouldn't
>> _mind_
>> seeing a so-much-money-spent-on-PR, so-much-money-spent-on-Foo.
>> That's just
>> a nice-to-have though.
>>
>
> This will come... now with the first votes over, we have found new energy
> to actually move forward. Right now we don't spend any money besides
> hosting (and that's not yet even payed for by SqF but a dedicated
> hosting-account that Cees set up some time ago).
>
> So, we will set up all the infrastructure soon... we need
>   -> Good website for SqF (with all information)

> All,
>
> My vote would be for setting up the Squeak Foundation as a Not for  
> Profit
> United States Non-Stock Corporation, but I’m not on the board.  I  
> assume
> that one of the first things that the board will discuss is the  
> form the
> foundation will take.  I’m not sure why it needs to take a  
> considerable
> amount of time.  If the board wants options they can ask for them,  
> we can
> all make suggestions and discuss the pros and cons of each form  
> until a set
> time.  At that time all the options should be collected up and  
> considered by
> the board.  They would then vote to select the form and then we  
> move ahead
> to implementation.  All done.
>
> Ron Teitelbaum
> Squeak Cryptography Team Leader
> Squeak New Team Member
> [hidden email]
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Peter Crowther
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:56 PM
>
>>> From: Marcus Denker
>>> A real legal entity... but that's some work.
>
>> Indeed.  It includes such interesting questions as deciding where  
>> such a
>> legal entity should be set up, and hence under which country's legal
>> framework it should operate.  That question alone can occupy a  
>> considerable
>> amount of time.
>
>> - Peter
>
>
>

> Hey Craig,
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Well I would vote for Delaware since there are a number of benefits of
> incorporating there, not to mention the lower costs.  Also we  
> already have
> legal help from the software freedom law center, which is free.  I  
> would say
> that yes we should get the tax exempt status, and yes we need  
> accounting
> help.  Over all I would say not too much time and not very much  
> money.  It
> just needs to get done so we can move on.
>
> Ron Teitelbaum
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig Latta
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:46 PM
>>
>> Hi--
>>
>> Ron writes:
>>
>>> My vote would be for setting up the Squeak Foundation as a Not for
>>> Profit United States Non-Stock Corporation... I'm not sure why it
>>> needs to take a considerable amount of time.
>>
>> Well, if I we decide to incorporate in the U.S., we'd have to decide
>> in
>> which state to incorporate, and whether to apply for tax-exempt  
>> status
>> with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and jump through those hoops.
>> We'd probably want to choose and hire a lawyer and an accountant.
>>
>> That sounds like a considerable amount of time (and money) to me.
>>
>>
>> -C
>>
>> --
>> Craig Latta
>> improvisational musical informaticist
>> www.netjam.org
>> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>>
>>
>
>

> From: Andrew Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:09 PM
>
> Legal formation of a foundation such as Squeak-F is a relatively
> simple problem, and doesn't really deserve much cognitive effort.
> The bottom line is that you should get, and follow, the advice of
> counsel and/or the accountant who is setting things up for you.  If
> you are getting those services for free, it would be simply insane to
> ask them to step out of their jurisdiction or comfort zone to
> structure the corporation in some strange or new-fangled way.  Given
> what I understand of Squeak-F goals, this is an absolutely routine
> matter.  In the United States, modern and "uniform" corporate laws
> make it less and less important in which state you organize.
>
> In particular, if you are using free lawyers, don't ask them to
> practice outside the country in which they are practicing, unless
> there is a genuine issue that I don't understand.  The encryption
> issue is simply not one of those.  If you, in fact, are exporting
> into or out of any nation, it is probably of no consequence in which
> nation you have organized -- you will be subject as a practical
> matter to the customs and internet-related laws of that
> jurisdiction.  Since Squeak-F will be resourceless in any legal
> squabble as a matter of practice, follow the KISS rule.  We simply
> can't afford, and are unlikely to benefit from, any complex legal
> structure.
>
> KISS.  Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
> Organization is something that requires very little thought, and must
> not become a hurdle.  Far more important is figuring out what it is
> you want to do, and then doing it.
>
> THE REAL QUESTION IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, TO DEFINE THE ENTITY'S
> MISSION.  Organization is a formality.  Please don't ignore the
> important issue for the trivial one.
>
> P.S.: I read somewhere that IRS has been loathe to grant open source
> NFP entities tax-exempt status.  My tax partner thought it was an
> interesting question, but wondered aloud whether it made much
> difference at all, since most prospective donors of import would be
> able to write off the expense one way or the other, and most small
> donors will not care much one way or the other.  As a practical
> matter, does Squeak-F expect to do much grass roots fund-raising,
> that you should particularly care?
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
>
> > Hey Craig,
> >
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > Well I would vote for Delaware since there are a number of benefits of
> > incorporating there, not to mention the lower costs.  Also we
> > already have
> > legal help from the software freedom law center, which is free.  I
> > would say
> > that yes we should get the tax exempt status, and yes we need
> > accounting
> > help.  Over all I would say not too much time and not very much
> > money.  It
> > just needs to get done so we can move on.
> >
> > Ron Teitelbaum
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Craig Latta
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:46 PM
> >>
> >> Hi--
> >>
> >> Ron writes:
> >>
> >>> My vote would be for setting up the Squeak Foundation as a Not for
> >>> Profit United States Non-Stock Corporation... I'm not sure why it
> >>> needs to take a considerable amount of time.
> >>
> >> Well, if I we decide to incorporate in the U.S., we'd have to decide
> >> in
> >> which state to incorporate, and whether to apply for tax-exempt
> >> status
> >> with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and jump through those hoops.
> >> We'd probably want to choose and hire a lawyer and an accountant.
> >>
> >> That sounds like a considerable amount of time (and money) to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> -C
> >>
> >> --
> >> Craig Latta
> >> improvisational musical informaticist
> >> www.netjam.org
> >> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>