Re: [Fsfe-uk] Where are we now?

[Alex Hudson]

On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 00:05, MJ Ray wrote:
> My primary concern is for us to *do* something.  There is so little time and
> so much to do, while it looks like whatever form is realistically an option
> for the immediate formation (as I think IPS and RC aren't realistic options)
> will be possible to change quite easily.  When can we form?

Agreed. I was confused by your original vote post, because I wouldn't
have included I&PS or RC on there for the reasons you give - I thought
we were talking about where we wanted to end up rather than how we were
going to get there :)

As I've said before, I don't see a future in an unlimited-liability
setup. However, if we want to setup tomorrow, that then rules out the
I&PS. Forming as an unincorporated group therefore makes sense in the
short term - so a FS does make sense in this regard.

So, I vote we form as a simple FS or something then :) But, I would like
to see us consider that as very much a first step: perhaps one of our
first 'group' actions should be to call an EGM of sorts to make the
final decision, perhaps set a deadline of February or something. But in
the meantime we can actually be doing things.

> What do people feel about having a two-part council/trustee setup?

Do you mean have one group of people 'legally' responsible for the org,
but another set of people actually running it? Assuming so :), some kind
of setup like that does make sense: the actual council running the AFFS
should be the same whatever type of organisation we choose, whereas the
number of people actually legally responsible for the org. might vary
depending on how we choose to form. De-coupling the structure of the
organisation from the legal representation makes a lot of sense.

Cheers,

Alex.

pgp80d0KvINdl.pgp
Description: PGP signature