Jimmy Kaplowitz <ji...@spi-inc.org> > If you read the full bullet point from which you excerpted, it's clear that > they're committing to do this work, but don't want the donations to be legally > unusable if they're insufficiently funded.
I did read the full bullet point, but didn't think the rest needed quoting. The problem is not my reading comprehension. The problem is that the above reasoning makes no sense to me: if they're committing to do this work, why do they need the donations to be unrestricted? Surely if the donations are insufficient funding, they need to add more funds, not use these funds for other work. We should donate restricted for the project, not for the outcome, so it'll be usable towards it even if the total is insufficient. > Even if there is some bizarre set of events where they can't make even slow > useful progress toward the goal and have to repurpose the funds, it's hard to > think of a set of exempt purposes more compatible with SPI's than > Conservancy's. [...] I don't trust the Conservancy like I trust SPI. I have a perception that they're more like a perpetuating trust than an autonomous and open association, and rather more conservative than liberal. I didn't find a page about its current purposes or bylaws on its website, but that may be partly due to my lack of familiarity with US numbered forms. The form 990 for the latest year only lists the most significant activities and largest three programmes. The annual report doesn't show the current purposes or bylaws either. Please would SPI restrict its donation to this software project? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
