On 6/27/19 7:28 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> As I understood this really has nothing to do with the eV or the
> organisational form (in legal terms).
>
> It was more related to how to organise processes within the GNUnet
> project/community.
>
> Regarding the eV/making profit: AFAIK the GUN
As I understood this really has nothing to do with the eV or the
organisational form (in legal terms).
It was more related to how to organise processes within the GNUnet
project/community.
Regarding the eV/making profit: AFAIK the GUNnet eV is already _for_ profit
even if it does
not actively a
Hi,
I don't understand why this is open for discussion, as it seems.
Exploration should be up to the listed members of the eV, which is one of the
points
exclusive to the eV where a difference of groups makes sense.
I was not around, but I was told it's just exploration atm.
Fabian Gerlach tran
I think that's a missunderstanding: after the discussion here I'm not
sure anyone actually intended to suggest the creation of a COOP/eG. At
least I read the "cooperative" discussion more as a thought experiment
on how to cooperate to enable developers to spend more time on the
project, and for tha
Hello again,
my 2 cents:
I'm for keeping the organizational form as it is (eV), because the change from
eV to COOP/eG goes hand in hand with a shift away from the actual matter (the
development of GNUnet, Freedom in networking) and towards making profit (with
GNUnet), and that would be bad.
