Discuss mailing list

[Peter McCann <mccap AT freeovernetfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Alex Nordlund
<deep.alexander AT gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
>> OK, my questions on this...
>> - Who is going to determine by what rules purchases are made?
> As much as I hate to say this: the board would.

I do think that's the right answer.  And I think the board will need to
have a single strong executive who can make decisions at least about
small sums.

>> - How do we prevent any single person from gaining a controlling interest 
>> in
>> OpenNic?
> By that I assume you mean the separate body which I aim at creating.
> And by that I answer: democracy and vote! (50.1%)

Are you proposing that anyone who has registered on the website gets
to vote on the board members?  I've asked before about exactly how
voters get enfranchised, and what are the controls on this.  Personally,
I think that members should demonstrate both a record of contribution
to the community and a commitment to a set of shared values (a kind
of litmus test).  Otherwise you will be faced with ballot-stuffing trademark
lawyers who will try to take over the organization.

>> Any time there is money involved, someone is going to try and find
>> a way to line their pockets.  Maybe not with the group of people currently
>> involved, but money attracts those types of people.  So what measures can 
>> be
>> taken to ensure someone doesn't run off with the donations?
> Perhaps splitting up the sums?
> But personally I do not believe we will at any single time hold enough
> money for it to be worth running away with (because it's illegal and
> requires a quite high sum!).
> Should we however approach those, I'll make arrangements with the bank
> to protect it.

I would caution you against placing assets in a bank.  Look at what is
happening to Wikileaks.  I don't think the existing banking system can
be trusted.

>> - How does someone become a member of this group, and under what criteria
>> can they be forcefully removed?
> I will give this one more thought, my original plan is flawed in this
> perspective.
> Tomorrow I'll give a better answer to this after I've modified the 
> plan/charter.

If you take a look at the trust declaration I put together for the Free 
Overnet
Foundation:

https://freeovernetfoundation.org/blog/2010/01/04/draft-trust-declaration/

I've proposed that each trustee be allocated a designated number of
non-transferable shares that determine how votes get decided.  Trustees
could be awarded new shares (and new trustees created) by a 3/4 vote
of the existing shares.  There is no process for revoking the shares of
a trustee.  I think this would provide the right level of continuity of 
purpose
for the organization.  Just a thought.

>> [..] what can we do to ensure that incorporation never kills the spirit of 
>> the
>> project?
> By making it a separate body I hope that it will not kill the spirit
> of the project.
> And by giving it the same goals I hope it incorporates the spirit :-)

The purpose, goals, and values should be clearly spelled out in the
charter in a section not subject to amendment.  New shares should
only be granted to trustees that demonstrate a commitment to the
values of the founders.

-Pete