Hi Matt, Matt Madia wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 17:25, Jorge G. Mare <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:But, as I've mentioned several times in the past, the fact that the members of Haiku Inc. can be legally be held accountable shows a clear and distinct line of separation between the Project at large and the NPO. I simply want that line to be acknowledged as where the NPO is outside of the Project.For one thing, every asset that Haiku Inc. manages -- be it funds, code, artwork, literature, promo material, web accounts, etc. -- are all contributions from volunteers; this makes all contributors stakeholders, regardless of whether one is a BOD member or not. And while its role calls for Haiku Inc. to be responsible of managing and protecting the trademarks and other assets, the NPO does not exist in a vacuum, and for all practical purposes it acts as an integral part of the project as whole. So no matter how you look at it, it is simply not possible to totally separate the NPO from the project as you would like.To all: I'm sorry for replying to this and providing fuel, but the above is not accurate. This has been a point of contention throughout the past and I will not tolerate it.
Matt, there is really no need to get agitated or to use forceful language. We are having a discussion, so let's try to keep emotions down.
The people who donate to the NPO are not stakeholders. They are not investors.
I am afraid that this is far from being a fact, unless you want to give new meaning to the words stakeholders and investors. It is simply a given that people who invest their time into any enterprise are affected by how their contributions are handled and what is made of them, and Haiku is no exception. Of course not that everyone has to have the same stake; but to declare that Haiku Inc. is the only one that has a stake on the assets of the project is simply not true and ignores the investment that many contributors have made in Haiku (I am sure you don't mean it that way).
They have no more say in what and how the assets of the NPO are used than any other non-NPO member.
I think you misunderstand what I said: did not put anybody above anyone; I simply said that for all practical purposes, all of us who invest time in Haiku are on the same ship and have more or less the same interest in seeing Haiku succeed, BOD member or not.
There is no requirement for the NPO to engage & listen to the input of the project. When you make the logical jump from the NPO listening to project members to the NPO being in the same exact ground as the Project is where the issue stems.
If you merely stick to the legal requirements of being a BOD member, you certainly have no obligation to respond to the community. But in practice that would not be viable.
I am pretty sure that the spirit of collaboration that has made Haiku possible is also important to you. I say this because I can see that you do listen and in many cases respect the desires of the contributors. That in itself is a tacit acknowledgement of the importance of the community that Haiku nurtures itself from. IOW, yes, in theory you are right, you have no obligation; but in practice, you know that you rely on listening to the community, both as a source of direction and as a means to recognizing their contributions to the project.
Until you acknowledge and respect that line of distinction between the Project and the NPO, I fear that you will always have issues interacting within the Project.
I cannot make a distinction that I believe does not exist just to please you. You don't have to agree with me, and that is fine; but please don't even try to impose your views by using forceful or intimidating language, because it does not work with me. If anything, it may have the opposite effect... :)
Regards, -- Jorge/aka Koki Website: http://haikuzone.net RSS: http://haikuzone.net/rss.xml
