On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM, kludge wrote:

Bob Finch wrote;

...

IF you are not set up to accept money without paying taxes, then YES you SHOULD fix that immediately. And I mean next week. I can think of NO GOOD reason for you to be paying taxes on funds donated for such an endeavor. NONE. Tell me where you live, and I will help you find a good lawyer that does this. It should not cost much at all.

speaking from experience, setting up a tax-exempt org is no minor undertaking. in fact, it's a down-right p.i.t.a. it's not a bad idea, but it takes a lot of work and more than few hours with a lawyer. it entails organization by-laws, a board of directors, and keeping books.

a better option might be to seek project status with a "fiscal sponsor." that's an already-established tax exempt non-profit that technically keeps yr books for you.

-kludge

Yes, and excellent point and that should be an opinion worth considering. I like to ask these kind of questions of my lawyers when they come up. Sometimes it is a matter of which type of organization as to whether it should be "project status" as you describe or even a third way of doing things. (I am not smarter than my lawyer when it comes to the mechanics of such things !!) One thing I think is appropriate to consider is how much more it might cost in the future if Aaron does NOT seek to set SOMETHING such as this up. I am pretty sure people like to set these things up sooner rather than later in part because of the additional costs of waiting too long and thereby creating a bigger problem by waiting. After all, ALL of the large distros, are set up to shield their principle staff from these kinds of tax (and liability) issues. AND Arch is now at this crossroads in it's growth if for no other reason than this proposal is about growth and the future and affording resources. So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me for money I said I would donate. Regards; Bob Finch

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, kludge wrote:

w9ya wrote:

...

So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me for money I said I would donate.

well, i wouldn't want to push any decisions too momentously on anyone. forming a legally recognized organization and going 501(c)(3) or fiscally sponsored is a big deal. takes *at least* a year and a lot of dedication.

All the more reason to be doing this yesterday, and if not yesterday, then today. Certainly waiting for tomorrow will cost you, ne , and anyone else involved with Archlinux more than dealing with it immediately. As in right now. One thing for sure. Aaron should start considering that he will not be able to grow Archlinux with his finances from where they are now, if I am to believe what he has said in the past few days. Either the money is there or it is not. And if he needs more money, he is creating a HUGE set of problems by not seeking some relief from taking this money in as personal income. Heck if he needs a lot of money and it shows up as his income, then he might well cross boundries and pay a higher percentage on his taxable base. That would be a shame and a travesty related to not seeking this kind of tax relief. Aaron NEEDS to fix this funding problem NOW regardles of what is entailed. If the answer is to limit access to resources, or limit the use of resources, or seek efficiency in those resources FIRST, he will still end up having to deal with this funding via his personal income issue anyways in time. I.e. Aaron cannot run away form this funding problem. Spending his time advocating this current proposal from Allan/Lou is simply a distraction compared to what he NEEDS to do. Sooner or later Archlinux WILL suffer compared to other distros that do NOT have this funding oddity. Archlinux cannot easily grow into a larger distro without fixing this. It just is not possible. NO other large distro is run this way. And Archlinux IS on the cusp of just such growth. That or there would be NO REASON to consider the proposal of Allan/Lou that is at hand. Regards; Bob Finch

if aaron et al. do decide to go that route, i'd be happy to offer what advice and experience i have, but ianal and iananpoa (n_on-p_rofit o_rganization a_adminstrator).

also, if this dicussion goes any further, it should probably move to arch general or the forum.

-kludge

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, w9ya wrote:

So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me for money I said I would donate.

Why does the decision for ArchLinux to become a non-profit have ANY bearing whatsoever on this proposal? It seems we're getting a little cracked here. Let's all take a step back and look at what we're talking about here, please I have more important things to do. If anyone has any serious questions regarding actual facts, feel free to email me personally. These mailing list posts are getting way out of hand, and frankly I just don't care anymore.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:21 PM, w9ya wrote:

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, w9ya wrote:

...

So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me for money I said I would donate.

Why does the decision for ArchLinux to become a non-profit have ANY bearing whatsoever on this proposal? It seems we're getting a little cracked here. Let's all take a step back and look at what we're talking about here, please

I have more important things to do. If anyone has any serious questions regarding actual facts, feel free to email me personally. These mailing list posts are getting way out of hand, and frankly I just don't care anymore.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the current proposal, Why ? Well because you are having resource concerns and said you spent a bunch of money beefing them up. Now you were looking at code and other things that might be done. Further YOU did say that efficiency was at issue, and that is ALWAYS a trade-off with resources, time and money.

So yeah, this proposal is based on needs, and those needs are based on resources. And you NEED funding to continue to grow. Period.

I am sorry if you feel that Arch linux can continue to grow with what amounts to funding from your income and time form your day. It cannot.

Please do not send mail to me and the list. I get list mails already.

oops ... I just hit reply since I thought your nessage to me about not sending to two places was also itself not sent to two places. Sorry about that. Bob On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM, w9ya wrote:

okey dokey !!

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:21 PM, w9ya wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, w9ya wrote:

...

So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me for money I said I would donate.

Why does the decision for ArchLinux to become a non-profit have ANY bearing whatsoever on this proposal? It seems we're getting a little cracked here. Let's all take a step back and look at what we're talking about here, please

I have more important things to do. If anyone has any serious questions regarding actual facts, feel free to email me personally. These mailing list posts are getting way out of hand, and frankly I just don't care anymore.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the current proposal, Why ? Well because

you

...

are having resource concerns and said you spent a bunch of money beefing them up. Now you were looking at code and other things that might be done. Further YOU did say that efficiency was at issue, and that is ALWAYS a trade-off with resources, time and money.

So yeah, this proposal is based on needs, and those needs are based on resources. And you NEED funding to continue to grow. Period.

I am sorry if you feel that Arch linux can continue to grow with what amounts to funding from your income and time form your day. It cannot.

Please do not send mail to me and the list. I get list mails already.