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

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-20 13:27:35

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:37 PM Julien Blanc via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> ...i have a really hard time understanding the parties involved.
>

Thank you so much for these great questions.

> ...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?
>

Ion's answer described the fiscal sponsorship model very well, so I will
just add a finer point to this.

Signing the fiscal sponsorship agreement doesn't immediately change
anything. It is at the moment when an asset is donated to the Boost project
in care of the fiscal sponsor that the Steering Committee can "act on
behalf of the boost community." And only in the limited context of managing
that asset. The recognition of authority of the Steering Committee comes
from the donating entity. In this case, if the Boost Foundation donates the
boost.org domain to the Boost project by transferring it to the new fiscal
sponsor, it is the Boost Foundation which is recognizing the authority of
the Steering Committee to act on behalf of the project. If you think about
it, that's the only way it can be legally arranged.

> 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 ?

Yes this sounds right.

> 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?
>

This is a good question, and I would advise the Current Committee (whose
current members are Ion, Joaquin, and Rene) to have the lawyers answer this
for us and explain the consequences. Note that this fiscal sponsorship
agreement is identical to the agreement which was in place for Boost before
the Boost Foundation was created, and Beman signed it. I presume all of the
signers thought about this. We should still ask.

Thanks