Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins today (3rd Sept)

From: Julien Blanc (julien.blanc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-20 06:37:22

Le mardi 03 septembre 2024 Ã  11:35 -0400, Glen Fernandes via Boost a
écrit :
> 
> It proposes a Fiscal Sponsorship which:
> 
> 1) is a legal agreement where the C++ Alliance holds assets on behalf
> of the Boost project. It proposes a newly formed (steering) committee
> that would be composed of Boost developer community members that
> would determine how the assets are used.

I'm sorry that such questions come late in the review, and they may
well be just coming from my lacking knowledge of how things work in the
US, but i have a really hard time understanding the parties involved.

It's pretty clear for the C++ Alliance. It's much less clear to me for
the "boost project" side.

The document states : 
« This Agreement is made by and between The C++ Alliance ("Alliance")
and Ion Gaztañaga Muñoa, Joaquín M López Muñoz, and René Ferdinand
Rivera Morell (the "Current Committee") on behalf of the project known
as Boost (the "Project") ».

My understanding is that it is an agreement between a non-profit and
three physical persons. So, my guess is that part of the outcome of
this review is acknowledging that these three persons (or five, as some
have suggested to add a few names) can act on behalf of the boost
community. Is that correct?

The document the talks about the steering committee, gives some minimal
rules about how it works, but that does not makes it a “legal” entity.
In France, we have a concept of « association de fait », but they have
very limited rights. Wikipedia translates that as “Unincorporated
association”. Is that the kind of association that will be the steering
committee ? 

One last thing, the document is very us law oriented, whereas Boost is
an international organization. I'm concerned, for example, by clause
8.a.1:

    the Successor is another nonprofit corporation which is
    tax-exempt under IRC Section 501(c) (3)

My understanding is that this clauses actually prevent any non-us
organization to be the Successor. While it may not be the intent, this
is not something i would take lightly. Or is it just bad understanding
of us laws from my side?

Sorry for asking these question so late in the review process, and
thanks for any answers you could provide.

Regards,

Julien