Status of the foundation?
Hi, what's the status of the openSUSE foundation? Wikipedia has this: "The project is self-organized without a legal structure, although the establishment of a foundation has been under consideration for some time." citing an article from 2020(!). Best Martin
Am So., 7. Juli 2024 um 22:19 Uhr schrieb Shawn W Dunn <sfalken@cloverleaf-linux.org>:
Home geekos.org Is the foundations site. Doug DeMaio gave a talk at oSC 2024 about the status: https://media.ccc.de/v/4091-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-geekos-but-d...
Thanks. And kudos to Patrick: You actually did something! :-) But: That is *a* foundation. It's not *the* openSUSE foundation. I suppose that's next? Also: Do German tax authorities recognize donations to a charitable UK foundation as tax-exempt? Or would we need something in the EU for that? An ECBA, once that exists? Best Martin
Hi, I found that the talk Shawn linked[1] to didn't address many of my questions. Since I couldn't attend the conference, I'm raising them here. Please note that these questions are not criticisms of the foundation or any of its trustees. They are simply checks and balances inquiries, as I couldn't find information addressing these concerns. While talk is cheap, written communication provides clarity ;) Firstly, has the foundation established an agreement with the Board to act as a financial vehicle for the project? Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the Board members or the Chairman have signed, confirming that the Geekos Foundation can and should fulfill this role? The foundation has been active for over a year, yet we haven't seen much information from the Board recognizing the Geekos Foundation as the official foundation of the project. Why is that? If the foundation is indeed recognized as the official foundation for the project, this should be communicated clearly by the Board. Additionally, where can we find the annual reports of the foundation? Even if the foundation hasn't managed any funds since it was established, a report should still be released, as I believe - but could be wrong - this is required by law. Is there a document that clearly defines the roles and boundaries of the foundation? For example, can it fund development requested by a sponsor, or can it cease funding projects similarly? Who decides where the funds go? Are these voted upon by the trustees? Lastly, I noticed that Patrick holds 75% of the voting power[2] in the foundation. Is there a reason for this, whether legal or otherwise? -- Br, A. 1: https://media.ccc.de/v/4091-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-geekos-but-d... 2: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/...
Hi,
I found that the talk Shawn linked[1] to didn't address many of my questions. Since I couldn't attend the conference, I'm raising them here. Please note that these questions are not criticisms of the foundation or any of its trustees. They are simply checks and balances inquiries, as I couldn't find information addressing these concerns. While talk is cheap, written communication provides clarity ;)
Firstly, has the foundation established an agreement with the Board to act as a financial vehicle for the project? Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the Board members or the Chairman have signed, confirming that the Geekos Foundation can and should fulfill this role? Actually, I don't recall that it actually being a decision that was
The foundation has been active for over a year, yet we haven't seen much information from the Board recognizing the Geekos Foundation as the official foundation of the project. Why is that? If the foundation is indeed recognized as the official foundation for the project, this should be communicated clearly by the Board. As above. But please bear in mind that it is not like there was anything else to choose from, so it became the de-facto choice. Additionally, where can we find the annual reports of the foundation? Even if the foundation hasn't managed any funds since it was established, a report should still be released, as I believe - but could be wrong - this is required by law. Yes, correct, the annual report is required by law and is about to be
Hi Attila... I'm speaking from the point of view of a community member and obviously a Geeko Foundation trustee (and founder), rather than being a board member. On 08/07/2024 03:50, Attila Pinter wrote: formally made. Perhaps it should be, however, but practically speaking, I'm not sure if it would carry any weight - because without the foundation there would be no sponsorship, because there is literally nowhere for the money to go to. That would have led to $0.00 being collected these past 16 months. published (stipulated by law to be lodged by November this year, but thank you for the reminder to ask the accountant about its status!). I'm all for visibility of the finances - but raising the funds is the number one priority at the moment.
Is there a document that clearly defines the roles and boundaries of the foundation? At the current moment, the founding document can be found here:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/... Note that that information was snapshot at the time of founding; all documents can be found here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/... For a rough guide as to what the current type of organisation Geeko actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_limited_by_guarantee Also - we are in the process of becoming a charity, which will require even more transparency.
For example, can it fund development requested by a sponsor, or can it cease funding projects similarly? Who decides where the funds go? Are these voted upon by the trustees?
For the most part, our funds are distributed to service travel support requests. Currently we are still drawing up guidelines around that* (let alone anything else!). As it is is still early days, a lot is still yet to be done. * and ways to automate the process of application, granting and subsequent payment.
Lastly, I noticed that Patrick holds 75% of the voting power[2] in the foundation. Is there a reason for this, whether legal or otherwise?
Honestly - I was not aware of that, as there are three trustees, and it was my /assumption /that control would be divided amongst them equally. I'll get back to all of you on this. There is a lot of information about, I think there were three talks that touched on the foundation topic at this years OSc. Feel free to ask any further questions. /p
-- Br, A.
1:https://media.ccc.de/v/4091-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-geekos-but-d... 2:https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/...
-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to:isupport@i-layer.com
On 7/8/24 3:19 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Hi Attila...
I'm speaking from the point of view of a community member and obviously a Geeko Foundation trustee (and founder), rather than being a board member.
Hi,
I found that the talk Shawn linked[1] to didn't address many of my questions. Since I couldn't attend the conference, I'm raising them here. Please note that these questions are not criticisms of the foundation or any of its trustees. They are simply checks and balances inquiries, as I couldn't find information addressing these concerns. While talk is cheap, written communication provides clarity ;)
Firstly, has the foundation established an agreement with the Board to act as a financial vehicle for the project? Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the Board members or the Chairman have signed, confirming that the Geekos Foundation can and should fulfill this role? Actually, I don't recall that it actually being a decision that was
The foundation has been active for over a year, yet we haven't seen much information from the Board recognizing the Geekos Foundation as the official foundation of the project. Why is that? If the foundation is indeed recognized as the official foundation for the project, this should be communicated clearly by the Board. As above. But please bear in mind that it is not like there was anything else to choose from, so it became the de-facto choice. Additionally, where can we find the annual reports of the foundation? Even if the foundation hasn't managed any funds since it was established, a report should still be released, as I believe - but could be wrong - this is required by law. Yes, correct, the annual report is required by law and is about to be
On 08/07/2024 03:50, Attila Pinter wrote: formally made. Perhaps it should be, however, but practically speaking, I'm not sure if it would carry any weight - because without the foundation there would be no sponsorship, because there is literally nowhere for the money to go to. That would have led to $0.00 being collected these past 16 months. published (stipulated by law to be lodged by November this year, but thank you for the reminder to ask the accountant about its status!). I'm all for visibility of the finances - but raising the funds is the number one priority at the moment.
Is there a document that clearly defines the roles and boundaries of the foundation? At the current moment, the founding document can be found here:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/...
Note that that information was snapshot at the time of founding; all documents can be found here:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/...
For a rough guide as to what the current type of organisation Geeko actually is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_limited_by_guarantee
Also - we are in the process of becoming a charity, which will require even more transparency.
For example, can it fund development requested by a sponsor, or can it cease funding projects similarly? Who decides where the funds go? Are these voted upon by the trustees?
For the most part, our funds are distributed to service travel support requests. Currently we are still drawing up guidelines around that* (let alone anything else!). As it is is still early days, a lot is still yet to be done.
* and ways to automate the process of application, granting and subsequent payment.
Lastly, I noticed that Patrick holds 75% of the voting power[2] in the foundation. Is there a reason for this, whether legal or otherwise?
Honestly - I was not aware of that, as there are three trustees, and it was my /assumption /that control would be divided amongst them equally. I'll get back to all of you on this.
There is a lot of information about, I think there were three talks that touched on the foundation topic at this years OSc.
Feel free to ask any further questions.
I am not that familiar with UK law but one of my main questions is how are trustees added / removed / changed? personally to function as an official part of the project I personally believe that its important that the community can appoint trustees either via election or some other manner like in the way the board can appoint a treasurer. The other thing that concerns me is the wikipedia link mentions: "Members instead act as guarantors of the company's liabilities: each member undertakes to contribute an amount specified in the articles (typically very small) in the event of insolvency or of the winding up of the company." Do you know if it is possible to take out insurance to cover this? I know personally i'd be very hesitant to become a trustee with this kind of risk. Even if the Geeko Foundation isn't perfect for the future needs of the project its a step in the right direction and is very helpful at the moment. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 12:49 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald <patrickf@i-layer.com> wrote: Thank you, Patrick for your answers, appreciate it!
Actually, I don't recall that it actually being a decision that was formally made. Perhaps it should be, however, but practically speaking, I'm not sure if it would carry any weight - because without the foundation there would be no sponsorship, because there is literally nowhere for the money to go to. That would have led to $0.00 being collected these past 16 months.
I would much prefer to have an official stand on the foundation from the Board, either acknowledging or dismissing it as the official foundation to support the project. As someone who was also on the Board, and been around the project for a while I welcome the idea of the foundation along with the rebranding of the project. This two likely go hand-in-hand. Likewise, I don't believe that the trustees should do all this work for free. With that said I have two additional questions: 1. Is there already or are you planing to have a "filter" for who can contribute funds to the project through the foundation, or it is pretty much anyone who wants to? The reason I'm asking this is that we've seen an uproar in the Nix community when their foundation accepted funds from a military contractor. As someone who closely worked with different governments and militaries the past decade I find no issue of course, and likewise, nobody found issue when my company sponsored openSUSE Asia Summit 2019, but figured it is better to ask for your opinion on this. 2. Are there any plans to have someone in the foundation who can dedicate time and effort in the future to bringing in sponsors to support the project or is this going to be more of a passive process, or trustees haven't discussed this yet? -- Br, A.
On 7/8/24 6:25 PM, Attila Pinter wrote:
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 12:49 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald <patrickf@i-layer.com> wrote:
Thank you, Patrick for your answers, appreciate it!
Actually, I don't recall that it actually being a decision that was formally made. Perhaps it should be, however, but practically speaking, I'm not sure if it would carry any weight - because without the foundation there would be no sponsorship, because there is literally nowhere for the money to go to. That would have led to $0.00 being collected these past 16 months.
I would much prefer to have an official stand on the foundation from the Board, either acknowledging or dismissing it as the official foundation to support the project. As someone who was also on the Board, and been around the project for a while I welcome the idea of the foundation along with the rebranding of the project. This two likely go hand-in-hand. Likewise, I don't believe that the trustees should do all this work for free.
As an unofficial statement from a board member who has made a small donation to the foundation i'd say the following. At the moment I see it as a separate entity that is helping the project fill a range of needs on a case by case basis that the project can't fill otherwise. In its current state of governance I don't believe it is ready to become the official foundation and fully integrated into the project. But I also see it as a slowly evolving work in progress and as things progress and processes change maybe it will become such. At the same time for the project as a whole not to end up with a renaming situation again in 10 to 15 years I believe that it is important that at best the project rather then SUSE holds the trademarks to the name and at worst SUSE holds the trademark but with a transfer of ownership clause that means should SUSE stop investing into openSUSE then the trademarks should be held by a separate body. To make such an agreement work there needs to be some form of foundation setup to handle the trademarks. Which in my opinion could be Geekos if we can get the governance right at the same time if the community chooses a completely different name or we can't get the governance structure of the geekos to a point where its accountable to the community then it likely makes sense to create something else. In the meantime the current foundation has been a useful tool in filling a range of gaps and directing greater sponsorship into the community and for that I'm thankful and I think it makes sense for it to continue to exist in that role until these discussions around name governance and structure are settled. At that point we can decide if it makes sense to transfer to something else or adopt it as official. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 4:32 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
On 7/8/24 6:25 PM, Attila Pinter wrote:
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 12:49 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald patrickf@i-layer.com wrote:
Thank you, Patrick for your answers, appreciate it!
Actually, I don't recall that it actually being a decision that was formally made. Perhaps it should be, however, but practically speaking, I'm not sure if it would carry any weight - because without the foundation there would be no sponsorship, because there is literally nowhere for the money to go to. That would have led to $0.00 being collected these past 16 months.
I would much prefer to have an official stand on the foundation from the Board, either acknowledging or dismissing it as the official foundation to support the project. As someone who was also on the Board, and been around the project for a while I welcome the idea of the foundation along with the rebranding of the project. This two likely go hand-in-hand. Likewise, I don't believe that the trustees should do all this work for free.
As an unofficial statement from a board member who has made a small donation to the foundation i'd say the following.
At the moment I see it as a separate entity that is helping the project fill a range of needs on a case by case basis that the project can't fill otherwise.
In its current state of governance I don't believe it is ready to become the official foundation and fully integrated into the project. But I also see it as a slowly evolving work in progress and as things progress and processes change maybe it will become such.
At the same time for the project as a whole not to end up with a renaming situation again in 10 to 15 years I believe that it is important that at best the project rather then SUSE holds the trademarks to the name and at worst SUSE holds the trademark but with a transfer of ownership clause that means should SUSE stop investing into openSUSE then the trademarks should be held by a separate body.
To make such an agreement work there needs to be some form of foundation setup to handle the trademarks. Which in my opinion could be Geekos if we can get the governance right at the same time if the community chooses a completely different name or we can't get the governance structure of the geekos to a point where its accountable to the community then it likely makes sense to create something else.
In the meantime the current foundation has been a useful tool in filling a range of gaps and directing greater sponsorship into the community and for that I'm thankful and I think it makes sense for it to continue to exist in that role until these discussions around name governance and structure are settled. At that point we can decide if it makes sense to transfer to something else or adopt it as official.
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
I think that the Board lately is more reactive than proactive for some reason. Shouldn't this be communicated towards the community? I understand that your statement is unofficial, but it would explain why there hasn't been a lot mentioned about the foundation. The rest makes perfect sense to me, thanks for your inputs! -- Br, A.
On 7/8/24 8:16 PM, Attila Pinter wrote:
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 4:32 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
On 7/8/24 6:25 PM, Attila Pinter wrote:
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 12:49 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald patrickf@i-layer.com wrote:
Thank you, Patrick for your answers, appreciate it!
Actually, I don't recall that it actually being a decision that was formally made. Perhaps it should be, however, but practically speaking, I'm not sure if it would carry any weight - because without the foundation there would be no sponsorship, because there is literally nowhere for the money to go to. That would have led to $0.00 being collected these past 16 months.
I would much prefer to have an official stand on the foundation from the Board, either acknowledging or dismissing it as the official foundation to support the project. As someone who was also on the Board, and been around the project for a while I welcome the idea of the foundation along with the rebranding of the project. This two likely go hand-in-hand. Likewise, I don't believe that the trustees should do all this work for free.
As an unofficial statement from a board member who has made a small donation to the foundation i'd say the following.
At the moment I see it as a separate entity that is helping the project fill a range of needs on a case by case basis that the project can't fill otherwise.
In its current state of governance I don't believe it is ready to become the official foundation and fully integrated into the project. But I also see it as a slowly evolving work in progress and as things progress and processes change maybe it will become such.
At the same time for the project as a whole not to end up with a renaming situation again in 10 to 15 years I believe that it is important that at best the project rather then SUSE holds the trademarks to the name and at worst SUSE holds the trademark but with a transfer of ownership clause that means should SUSE stop investing into openSUSE then the trademarks should be held by a separate body.
To make such an agreement work there needs to be some form of foundation setup to handle the trademarks. Which in my opinion could be Geekos if we can get the governance right at the same time if the community chooses a completely different name or we can't get the governance structure of the geekos to a point where its accountable to the community then it likely makes sense to create something else.
In the meantime the current foundation has been a useful tool in filling a range of gaps and directing greater sponsorship into the community and for that I'm thankful and I think it makes sense for it to continue to exist in that role until these discussions around name governance and structure are settled. At that point we can decide if it makes sense to transfer to something else or adopt it as official.
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
I think that the Board lately is more reactive than proactive for some reason. Shouldn't this be communicated towards the community? I understand that your statement is unofficial, but it would explain why there hasn't been a lot mentioned about the foundation.
The rest makes perfect sense to me, thanks for your inputs!
Yeah all the work on this was done while I wasn't on the board so I can't really comment much more on it but certainly one of my goals for this discussion is to get all of that stuff better fleshed out. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 3:55 PM, Attila Pinter <adathor@protonmail.com> wrote:
With that said I have two additional questions:
1. Is there already or are you planing to have a "filter" for who can contribute funds to the project through the foundation, or it is pretty much anyone who wants to? The reason I'm asking this is that we've seen an uproar in the Nix community when their foundation accepted funds from a military contractor. As someone who closely worked with different governments and militaries the past decade I find no issue of course, and likewise, nobody found issue when my company sponsored openSUSE Asia Summit 2019, but figured it is better to ask for your opinion on this.
2. Are there any plans to have someone in the foundation who can dedicate time and effort in the future to bringing in sponsors to support the project or is this going to be more of a passive process, or trustees haven't discussed this yet?
I think these two additional questions from earlier got lost in the discourse and went unanswered. -- Br, A.
On 2024-07-08 03:50, Attila Pinter wrote:
The foundation has been active for over a year, yet we haven't seen much information from the Board recognizing the Geekos Foundation as the official foundation of the project. Why is that? If the foundation is indeed recognized as the official foundation for the project, this should be communicated clearly by the Board.
There are some things mention in board meeting note, but for sure there should more. Perhaps there is a need for more formality. While there is some, it would be nice to something a little more unambiguous. Meetings at the conference did provide some areas for this to grow, I feel. A quick search on the wiki should provide some additional information on some communications that have taken place so far. https://en.opensuse.org/Archive:Board_meeting_2023-02-27 https://en.opensuse.org/Archive:Board_meeting_2023-03-27 https://en.opensuse.org/Archive:Board_meeting_2023-05-22 https://en.opensuse.org/Archive:Board_meeting_2024-01-29 The branding topic may have some association to moving these things forward as well. Hopefully the roads lead to a better place for all. v/r Doug
Hi Attila, As a result of questions asked elsewhere (and here), I have further information in relation to the questions you have raised here. Firstly: I do not have more than 75% of the voting rights as suggested below. That was the case /at the time/ of forming the not-for-profit foundation, as someone has to do it - take a look at the "Filing history" tab at [1], there you can see that the link that you provided is dated 14 February 2023. At the same time, /articles of association/ where adopted, in which the rules that the govern the organisation are defined. Following that date two more trustees were appointed. All of us have to abide by the articles of association, by law. You can view the entire articles of association on the last link of the filing history link above. The three community members have devoted a great deal of time to set up a foundation with the sole purpose of benefiting the entire community. We have been open every step of the way and continue to be so. We welcome all comments and constructive feedback so that we may shape a foundation that works for everyone. If any additional clarification is wanted or required, we are here for the entire community. We are happy to set up a call to address any questions that the community may have. In the meantime, we remain at the community's disposal and can be reached on Telegram at https://t.me/geekos_org anytime. Also, FWIW, it doesn't have to be called the Geeko Foundation - the domain name was available so I grabbed it! Best regards - Patrick [1] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457 On 08/07/2024 03:50, Attila Pinter wrote:
Hi,
I found that the talk Shawn linked[1] to didn't address many of my questions. Since I couldn't attend the conference, I'm raising them here. Please note that these questions are not criticisms of the foundation or any of its trustees. They are simply checks and balances inquiries, as I couldn't find information addressing these concerns. While talk is cheap, written communication provides clarity ;)
Firstly, has the foundation established an agreement with the Board to act as a financial vehicle for the project? Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the Board members or the Chairman have signed, confirming that the Geekos Foundation can and should fulfill this role?
The foundation has been active for over a year, yet we haven't seen much information from the Board recognizing the Geekos Foundation as the official foundation of the project. Why is that? If the foundation is indeed recognized as the official foundation for the project, this should be communicated clearly by the Board.
Additionally, where can we find the annual reports of the foundation? Even if the foundation hasn't managed any funds since it was established, a report should still be released, as I believe - but could be wrong - this is required by law.
Is there a document that clearly defines the roles and boundaries of the foundation? For example, can it fund development requested by a sponsor, or can it cease funding projects similarly? Who decides where the funds go? Are these voted upon by the trustees?
Lastly, I noticed that Patrick holds 75% of the voting power[2] in the foundation. Is there a reason for this, whether legal or otherwise?
-- Br, A.
1:https://media.ccc.de/v/4091-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-geekos-but-d... 2:https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/...
-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to:isupport@i-layer.com
Patrick Fitzgerald <patrickf@i-layer.com> writes:
Hi Attila,
As a result of questions asked elsewhere (and here), I have further information in relation to the questions you have raised here.
Firstly: I do not have more than 75% of the voting rights as suggested below. That was the case /at the time/ of forming the not-for-profit foundation, as someone has to do it - take a look at the "Filing history" tab at [1], there you can see that the link that you provided is dated 14 February 2023.
Was it already decided where this entity would be based? Other's such as for example KDE have a German e.V. entity.
At the same time, /articles of association/ where adopted, in which the rules that the govern the organisation are defined. Following that date two more trustees were appointed. All of us have to abide by the articles of association, by law. You can view the entire articles of association on the last link of the filing history link above.
The three community members have devoted a great deal of time to set up a foundation with the sole purpose of benefiting the entire community. We have been open every step of the way and continue to be so. We welcome all comments and constructive feedback so that we may shape a foundation that works for everyone. If any additional clarification is wanted or required, we are here for the entire community.
We are happy to set up a call to address any questions that the community may have. In the meantime, we remain at the community's disposal and can be reached on Telegram at https://t.me/geekos_org anytime.
Also, FWIW, it doesn't have to be called the Geeko Foundation - the domain name was available so I grabbed it!
Personally I would prefer if the foundation could keep/take the openSUSE name since IMHO better if the issues between openSUSE and SUSE get resolved. openSUSE was and is a springboard to SUSE as SLE from my point of view, the relation or base is there but they targeted to different audiences. However another name would fit given the relation of the origin of SUSE and thus openSUSE would be to name the foundation after Konrad Zuse, a German computer pioneer. But after thinking a bit even thou from openSUSE to openZUSE sounds kinda funny it is not that good. Loosing the SUSE name in openSUSE would be a major recognition factor loss, from a German/EU point of view that is.
Best regards - Patrick
[1] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457
On 08/07/2024 03:50, Attila Pinter wrote:
Hi,
I found that the talk Shawn linked[1] to didn't address many of my questions. Since I couldn't attend the conference, I'm raising them here. Please note that these questions are not criticisms of the foundation or any of its trustees. They are simply checks and balances inquiries, as I couldn't find information addressing these concerns. While talk is cheap, written communication provides clarity ;)
Firstly, has the foundation established an agreement with the Board to act as a financial vehicle for the project? Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the Board members or the Chairman have signed, confirming that the Geekos Foundation can and should fulfill this role?
The foundation has been active for over a year, yet we haven't seen much information from the Board recognizing the Geekos Foundation as the official foundation of the project. Why is that? If the foundation is indeed recognized as the official foundation for the project, this should be communicated clearly by the Board.
Additionally, where can we find the annual reports of the foundation? Even if the foundation hasn't managed any funds since it was established, a report should still be released, as I believe - but could be wrong - this is required by law.
Is there a document that clearly defines the roles and boundaries of the foundation? For example, can it fund development requested by a sponsor, or can it cease funding projects similarly? Who decides where the funds go? Are these voted upon by the trustees?
Lastly, I noticed that Patrick holds 75% of the voting power[2] in the foundation. Is there a reason for this, whether legal or otherwise?
-- Br, A.
1:https://media.ccc.de/v/4091-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-geekos-but-d... 2:https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457/...
On 2024-08-06 11:08, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Hi Attila,
As a result of questions asked elsewhere (and here), I have further information in relation to the questions you have raised here.
Firstly: I do not have more than 75% of the voting rights as suggested below. That was the case /at the time/ of forming the not-for-profit foundation, as someone has to do it - take a look at the "Filing history" tab at [1], there you can see that the link that you provided is dated 14 February 2023.
I’m sorry Patrick but your statement that you do not have 75% of the voting rights is just not held up by UK public records If the articles of association reduced your influence as you said, I’d expect the Companies House registration to reflect that - case in point, OpenUK which has no individual with overall control https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11209475/... Until the Geekos foundations public records are present and correct I have my doubts about its credibility as an organisation to represent this project. I also have my doubts regarding the Geekos Foudations accounts. I understand there is no statutory requirement to provide accounts (yet) but as you have made well aware the Geeko foundation has raised significant money in the name of supporting that Project and the very brief update at oSC was very scarce on details. I think the project deserves to know exactly how much money was raised in its name. I understand the main expense of the Geeko foundation has been travel support. I think the project needs to know how much money was spent on getting how many contributors to which events. Exact details of who of course is probably too much as I expect many contrubutors don’t want it known they needed support. I also think it’s essential the Geeko Foundation reports separately how much money is being spent by the trustees on their own expenses. I believe these expenses should be itemised in some detail to eliminate any fears that the Foundations funds are being misappropriated. With that sort of information and correct legal filings I think the Geeko Foundation would be in a good position to consider for a deeper involvement in this Project. Regards Richard
On 09/08/2024 17:52, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-06 11:08, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Hi Attila,
As a result of questions asked elsewhere (and here), I have further information in relation to the questions you have raised here.
Firstly: I do not have more than 75% of the voting rights as suggested below. That was the case /at the time/ of forming the not-for-profit foundation, as someone has to do it - take a look at the "Filing history" tab at [1], there you can see that the link that you provided is dated 14 February 2023.
I’m sorry Patrick but your statement that you do not have 75% of the voting rights is just not held up by UK public records
If the articles of association reduced your influence as you said, I’d expect the Companies House registration to reflect that - case in point, OpenUK which has no individual with overall control OpenUK has been going a lot longer, so there is a lot more information available. As to the Companies House registration, that is not automatic (see more below)
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11209475/...
Until the Geekos foundations public records are present and correct I have my doubts about its credibility as an organisation to represent this project. Sure, I will ask my accountants to expedite the update. (I asked them when this was first raised, but they referred me to the Articles of Incorporation as "proof". I will revert when I have definitive evidence.)
I also have my doubts regarding the Geekos Foudations accounts. I understand there is no statutory requirement to provide accounts (yet) but as you have made well aware the Geeko foundation has raised significant money in the name of supporting that Project and the very brief update at oSC was very scarce on details.
I think the project deserves to know exactly how much money was raised in its name.
I understand the main expense of the Geeko foundation has been travel support.
I think the project needs to know how much money was spent on getting how many contributors to which events. Exact details of who of course is probably too much as I expect many contrubutors don’t want it known they needed support. All agreed, the last point should be fairly easy to achieve, depending on the granularity required. Would a simple "Total Event TSP / attendees" be enough? Looking for guidance here.
I also think it’s essential the Geeko Foundation reports separately how much money is being spent by the trustees on their own expenses. I believe these expenses should be itemised in some detail to eliminate any fears that the Foundations funds are being misappropriated.
Agreed. However we are all working full-time jobs, and the extraction and formatting of this information is somewhat time staking, at least initially. We hope to automate this. But we will make this a priority, as much as time allows us to. In fact, anyone with python / rest skills is welcome to help with the integration with our accounts system! Anyone interested?
With that sort of information and correct legal filings I think the Geeko Foundation would be in a good position to consider for a deeper involvement in this Project. Good to hear.
Regards
Richard
-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to: isupport@i-layer.com
On Friday, August 9th, 2024 at 10:52 PM, Richard Brown <rbrown@suse.de> wrote:
On 2024-08-06 11:08, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Hi Attila,
As a result of questions asked elsewhere (and here), I have further information in relation to the questions you have raised here.
Firstly: I do not have more than 75% of the voting rights as suggested below. That was the case /at the time/ of forming the not-for-profit foundation, as someone has to do it - take a look at the "Filing history" tab at [1], there you can see that the link that you provided is dated 14 February 2023.
I’m sorry Patrick but your statement that you do not have 75% of the voting rights is just not held up by UK public records
If the articles of association reduced your influence as you said, I’d expect the Companies House registration to reflect that - case in point, OpenUK which has no individual with overall control
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11209475/...
Until the Geekos foundations public records are present and correct I have my doubts about its credibility as an organisation to represent this project.
I also have my doubts regarding the Geekos Foudations accounts. I understand there is no statutory requirement to provide accounts (yet) but as you have made well aware the Geeko foundation has raised significant money in the name of supporting that Project and the very brief update at oSC was very scarce on details.
I think the project deserves to know exactly how much money was raised in its name.
I understand the main expense of the Geeko foundation has been travel support.
I think the project needs to know how much money was spent on getting how many contributors to which events. Exact details of who of course is probably too much as I expect many contrubutors don’t want it known they needed support.
I also think it’s essential the Geeko Foundation reports separately how much money is being spent by the trustees on their own expenses. I believe these expenses should be itemised in some detail to eliminate any fears that the Foundations funds are being misappropriated.
With that sort of information and correct legal filings I think the Geeko Foundation would be in a good position to consider for a deeper involvement in this Project.
Regards
Richard
Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate. -- Br, A.
On 12/08/2024 03:57, Attila Pinter wrote:
On Friday, August 9th, 2024 at 10:52 PM, Richard Brown<rbrown@suse.de> wrote:
On 2024-08-06 11:08, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Hi Attila,
As a result of questions asked elsewhere (and here), I have further information in relation to the questions you have raised here.
Firstly: I do not have more than 75% of the voting rights as suggested below. That was the case /at the time/ of forming the not-for-profit foundation, as someone has to do it - take a look at the "Filing history" tab at [1], there you can see that the link that you provided is dated 14 February 2023.
I’m sorry Patrick but your statement that you do not have 75% of the voting rights is just not held up by UK public records
If the articles of association reduced your influence as you said, I’d expect the Companies House registration to reflect that - case in point, OpenUK which has no individual with overall control
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11209475/...
Until the Geekos foundations public records are present and correct I have my doubts about its credibility as an organisation to represent this project.
I also have my doubts regarding the Geekos Foudations accounts. I understand there is no statutory requirement to provide accounts (yet) but as you have made well aware the Geeko foundation has raised significant money in the name of supporting that Project and the very brief update at oSC was very scarce on details.
I think the project deserves to know exactly how much money was raised in its name.
I understand the main expense of the Geeko foundation has been travel support.
I think the project needs to know how much money was spent on getting how many contributors to which events. Exact details of who of course is probably too much as I expect many contrubutors don’t want it known they needed support.
I also think it’s essential the Geeko Foundation reports separately how much money is being spent by the trustees on their own expenses. I believe these expenses should be itemised in some detail to eliminate any fears that the Foundations funds are being misappropriated.
With that sort of information and correct legal filings I think the Geeko Foundation would be in a good position to consider for a deeper involvement in this Project.
Regards
Richard Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate.
Agreed, and I am working on this. I forgot to mention that we are using the openSUSE TSP system, which I am unfamiliar with, (and I don't believe that even have access to except to make requests). Doug is currently on vacation, so unless there someone who can produce a report prior to his return.. the TSP side will have to wait. BUT everything TSP-related is in that database. I think people need to realise that there is only one person involved technically - me. If anyone would like step up and help - on a technical level - then they would be welcome. (PLEASE!) Otherwise, these demands will be prioritised accordingly... as in somewhere in the middle of... * establishing more means of donation * more donors being being signed up * creation of the 501(c)3 and EU entities * government paperwork being completed (tax) * government paperwork being completed (charity) * oh, lets not forget my day job. In addition, IMHO the foundation's reporting priorities should be focussed on the donors, and the government. The beneficiaries are important, obviously, but unfortunately for some, the Foundation sees openSUSE's representatives as being the board, not individuals. Please make representations to the board. Regardless of your feelings, this is the correct channel. Having said all that, more information is coming. Help us make everything more transparent by helping out with some code. Oh, and make a donation! BTW: Yesterday we have introduced SEPA transfers of donations of up to €5k for corporates and individuals. (That was a request made at oSC - thanks Sarah + others). PS: Python/Django, HTML, CSS and JavaScript skills are very welcome.
-- Br, A.
-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b>
On 2024-08-12 10:47, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate.
Agreed, and I am working on this. I forgot to mention that we are using the openSUSE TSP system, which I am unfamiliar with, (and I don't believe that even have access to except to make requests). Doug is currently on vacation, so unless there someone who can produce a report prior to his return.. the TSP side will have to wait. BUT everything TSP-related is in that database.
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement? Use of the TSP platform is governed by the SUSE privacy policy as it requires use of SUSES IDM tooling https://www.suse.com/company/legal/ This document clearly states “We process your Personal Data solely within the SUSE Group unless we expressly inform you otherwise” But if the TSP is being governed by the Geeko Foundation as you describe, where can I find the details of the Data transfer policies between those organisations and to whom would a GDPR right-to-be-forgotten request be sent to, SUSE or the Geeko Foundation?
On 12/08/2024 13:36, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 10:47, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate.
Agreed, and I am working on this. I forgot to mention that we are using the openSUSE TSP system, which I am unfamiliar with, (and I don't believe that even have access to except to make requests). Doug is currently on vacation, so unless there someone who can produce a report prior to his return.. the TSP side will have to wait. BUT everything TSP-related is in that database.
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
Use of the TSP platform is governed by the SUSE privacy policy as it requires use of SUSES IDM tooling
https://www.suse.com/company/legal/
This document clearly states “We process your Personal Data solely within the SUSE Group unless we expressly inform you otherwise”
But if the TSP is being governed by the Geeko Foundation as you describe, where can I find the details of the Data transfer policies between those organisations and to whom would a GDPR right-to-be-forgotten request be sent to, SUSE or the Geeko Foundation?
It is the same system! Managed by the same people (whoever they are at SUSE/oS) - I'm sure we'll either host the same system, or come up with our own. Right now, NOTHING has changed. We don't /govern/ it, we just /use /it. So by extension, I would expect that everything of which you speak is still managed by SUSE. Doug will know more. Once again, contributions are very welcome. /p
On 2024-08-12 13:52, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
On 12/08/2024 13:36, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 10:47, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate.
Agreed, and I am working on this. I forgot to mention that we are using the openSUSE TSP system, which I am unfamiliar with, (and I don't believe that even have access to except to make requests). Doug is currently on vacation, so unless there someone who can produce a report prior to his return.. the TSP side will have to wait. BUT everything TSP-related is in that database.
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
Use of the TSP platform is governed by the SUSE privacy policy as it requires use of SUSES IDM tooling
https://www.suse.com/company/legal/
This document clearly states “We process your Personal Data solely within the SUSE Group unless we expressly inform you otherwise”
But if the TSP is being governed by the Geeko Foundation as you describe, where can I find the details of the Data transfer policies between those organisations and to whom would a GDPR right-to-be-forgotten request be sent to, SUSE or the Geeko Foundation?
It is the same system! Managed by the same people (whoever they are at SUSE/oS) - I'm sure we'll either host the same system, or come up with our own. Right now, NOTHING has changed. We don't /govern/ it, we just /use /it. So by extension, I would expect that everything of which you speak is still managed by SUSE.
Doug will know more. Once again, contributions are very welcome.
/p
The Geeko Foundation is a UK registered entity is it not? Seperate from the SUSE Group entities that are governed under that privacy policy Of the Geeko Foundation is receiving money which it is then giving to TSP receipiants, this must mean identifiable data is being transferred from SUSE/openSUSE to that UK registered legal entity in order to facilitate those payments. There must be some policies, documentation and legal structure covering the transfer of information, no? For example, how long does the Geeko Foundation retain the bank details of the TSP recipients it receives from SUSE? I’m sure this sort of thing must have been thought of before SUSE starting giving tons of money for the Geeko Foundation to administer via the TSP.. surely?
On 12/08/2024 15:48, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:52, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
On 12/08/2024 13:36, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 10:47, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate.
Agreed, and I am working on this. I forgot to mention that we are using the openSUSE TSP system, which I am unfamiliar with, (and I don't believe that even have access to except to make requests). Doug is currently on vacation, so unless there someone who can produce a report prior to his return.. the TSP side will have to wait. BUT everything TSP-related is in that database.
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
Use of the TSP platform is governed by the SUSE privacy policy as it requires use of SUSES IDM tooling
https://www.suse.com/company/legal/
This document clearly states “We process your Personal Data solely within the SUSE Group unless we expressly inform you otherwise”
But if the TSP is being governed by the Geeko Foundation as you describe, where can I find the details of the Data transfer policies between those organisations and to whom would a GDPR right-to-be-forgotten request be sent to, SUSE or the Geeko Foundation?
It is the same system! Managed by the same people (whoever they are at SUSE/oS) - I'm sure we'll either host the same system, or come up with our own. Right now, NOTHING has changed. We don't /govern/ it, we just /use /it. So by extension, I would expect that everything of which you speak is still managed by SUSE.
Doug will know more. Once again, contributions are very welcome.
/p
The Geeko Foundation is a UK registered entity is it not? Seperate from the SUSE Group entities that are governed under that privacy policy
Of the Geeko Foundation is receiving money which it is then giving to TSP receipiants, this must mean identifiable data is being transferred from SUSE/openSUSE to that UK registered legal entity in order to facilitate those payments. Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but this work is done by a SUSE employee.
There must be some policies, documentation and legal structure covering the transfer of information, no? Well, it is documented on
* messages mostly on the openSUSE email system * and GF Wise bank account
For example, how long does the Geeko Foundation retain the bank details of the TSP recipients it receives from SUSE?
Grey area actually. Stripe do all of our incoming payment processing, so don't hold anything, apart from what the bank keeps for their, and our, records. We don't hold any data ourselves except for those who opt-in to receiving emails, at the time of donation, and that is just their name and email address. For example, I can't even tell if /you/ have donated. My guess is.. not. But to quote the GDPR: "An individual has the right to have their personal data erased if: The personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose an organization originally collected or processed it."
I’m sure this sort of thing must have been thought of before SUSE starting giving tons of money for the Geeko Foundation to administer via the TSP.. surely?
tons of money?? 😂 Richard, would you like to help by working with us to draft the kind of policies that make sense from your point of view, you are very welcome. Seriously. I'd rather engage in something constructive rather than this. How you draft something and I'll get it checked, and put it on the website? Or we collaborate? That's what this community is all about, isn't it? The Foundation is very much a work in progress, moving as quickly as it can given the resources at it's disposal. More resources (e.g., people's time) can only make it better. /p
On 2024-08-12 16:52, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard, would you like to help by working with us to draft the kind of policies that make sense from your point of view, you are very welcome. Seriously. I'd rather engage in something constructive rather than this. How you draft something and I'll get it checked, and put it on the website?
Or we collaborate? That's what this community is all about, isn't it?
I contribute to Projects I trust That does not include your foundation
On 12/08/2024 16:56, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 16:52, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard, would you like to help by working with us to draft the kind of policies that make sense from your point of view, you are very welcome. Seriously. I'd rather engage in something constructive rather than this. How you draft something and I'll get it checked, and put it on the website?
Or we collaborate? That's what this community is all about, isn't it?
I contribute to Projects I trust
That does not include your foundation
Aah, at last we are getting somewhere. So you would not contribute to the Foundation in in order to make it more transparent? Please list the reasons for you mistrust, and * We will do our best to either clarify any misconceptions * Correct any inaccuracies * Do what we can do in order to earn your trust In our haste to provide services to this community, perhaps our communications have not been timely; I wish to correct this. Richard, please help us to help the community. Thanks - Patrick
On 2024-08-12 17:31, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Aah, at last we are getting somewhere.
So you would not contribute to the Foundation in in order to make it more transparent?
Not as long as two of the three trustees are individuals who have clearly proven themselves to be unworthy of my trust or confidence.
Please list the reasons for you mistrust, and
The actions you have taken as part of the openSUSE Board, my objections to them, and my resulting lost of trust or confidence in the current openSUSE Board have been well documented on various threads on this list and by third party reporting such as on LWN. Fellow contributors such as Atilla have noted that no action has been taken to remedy those issues. I share that observation. I feel there is nothing to be gained by repeating them yet again.
In our haste to provide services to this community, perhaps our communications have not been timely; I wish to correct this.
Richard, please help us to help the community.
My questions and comments in this thread have been my very generous efforts to give you an opportunity to build trust. I see the direction you’re trying to steer this thread into as an effort to avoid or redirect instead of addressing the concerns or questions I’ve already raised. I feel there is nothing to be gained by repeating myself with things I’ve already said in this thread.
On Monday, August 12th, 2024 at 10:31 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald <patrickf@i-layer.com> wrote:
On 12/08/2024 16:56, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 16:52, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard, would you like to help by working with us to draft the kind of policies that make sense from your point of view, you are very welcome. Seriously. I'd rather engage in something constructive rather than this. How you draft something and I'll get it checked, and put it on the website?
Or we collaborate? That's what this community is all about, isn't it?
I contribute to Projects I trust
That does not include your foundation
Aah, at last we are getting somewhere.
So you would not contribute to the Foundation in in order to make it more transparent?
Please list the reasons for you mistrust, and
- We will do our best to either clarify any misconceptions - Correct any inaccuracies - Do what we can do in order to earn your trust
In our haste to provide services to this community, perhaps our communications have not been timely; I wish to correct this.
Richard, please help us to help the community.
Thanks - Patrick
It seems there might be some confusion here. I agree with what Richard said — it's a valid point. The existence of this thread alone highlights the potential trust issues that may exist in the community. I initially raised these concerns in the Bar, where people argued with me at least 3 hours. The moment money is involved, our relationships will inevitably change. And yes, the way you handled things in the past a board member doesn't help much with building trust in my personal opinion. Anyhow, I'm asking these questions here because they haven't been addressed anywhere ever. There's a general lack of communication surrounding the foundation, aside from the fact that it's "here to support the project", yet, the Board doesn't recognize it as the project's official foundation and won't make an official statement on why. If you want to improve things, focus on better communication and avoid taking things personally when tough questions are asked due to a lack of transparency. Just my 2C. -- Br, A.
On 12/08/2024 17:56, Attila Pinter wrote:
On Monday, August 12th, 2024 at 10:31 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald<patrickf@i-layer.com> wrote:
On 12/08/2024 16:56, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 16:52, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard, would you like to help by working with us to draft the kind of policies that make sense from your point of view, you are very welcome. Seriously. I'd rather engage in something constructive rather than this. How you draft something and I'll get it checked, and put it on the website?
Or we collaborate? That's what this community is all about, isn't it?
I contribute to Projects I trust
That does not include your foundation Aah, at last we are getting somewhere.
So you would not contribute to the Foundation in in order to make it more transparent?
Please list the reasons for you mistrust, and
- We will do our best to either clarify any misconceptions - Correct any inaccuracies - Do what we can do in order to earn your trust
In our haste to provide services to this community, perhaps our communications have not been timely; I wish to correct this.
Richard, please help us to help the community.
Thanks - Patrick When it came down to it, this is turned out to be a beef that Richard has with a board, and therefore me. I'm ok with that. Wish it wasn't the case, but it is what it is. It seems there might be some confusion here. I agree with what Richard said — it's a valid point.
Which one? * Financial transparency? working on it. * My apparent control? working on that too. * GDPR? working on that, but IMHO we are are compliant, but will consult a lawyer to check. If there is anything else: please let me know.
The existence of this thread alone highlights the potential trust issues that may exist in the community. I initially raised these concerns in the Bar, where people argued with me at least 3 hours. The moment money is involved, our relationships will inevitably change. Money is always involved, it just depends on who is spending it, or who is donating it in the form of $ or time. And yes, the way you handled things in the past a board member doesn't help much with building trust in my personal opinion. Happy to discuss that in the bar, if you have only heard one side of the story.
Anyhow, I'm asking these questions here because they haven't been addressed anywhere ever. There's a general lack of communication surrounding the foundation, aside from the fact that it's "here to support the project", yet, the Board doesn't recognize it as the project's official foundation and won't make an official statement on why.
Good point, it has never been raised as an issue before in that way... * Perhaps it should be raised as a board level issue. (But as a couple of project members don't trust the board, who is going to do that?) * Has the board been asked to make a statement as to why? (honest question) * I can tell you the unofficial reasons: o If you were at oSC 2019 you'd understand why I am doing this. If you weren't - ask someone who was. o All of the trustees of the Geeko Foundation want to build something that helps the community. o As an idea it has bounced around for some time, but nothing had ever eventuated: so I took the risk and set it up. o Therefore, I guess, it has kind of achieved "default" status, as there was no where for donations to go to. Now there is.
If you want to improve things, focus on better communication and avoid taking things personally when tough questions are asked due to a lack of transparency. Just my 2C.
Agreed, but as I have stated: I need more help doing this. I don't take it personally when people ask for more accountability. I welcome it. The "Persons with Significant Control" question was appropriate - and I gave you the same answer that my accountants gave me. But I am working with them on Wednesday to correct this, and results should be available this Thursday. (or as soon as HMRC can publish it). A company tax return in the UK can be filed a maximum 12 months from the end of the financial year. We are working on this right now. However the resulting accounts will be dry reading indeed. So... What do you want to see? (honest question). We can build a template that our accounting system can pour in the data, but unless we are told what people want... the effort will be worthless. Even worse, and more pressing, is the fact that people are likely to want to see up-to-date numbers on TSP, but the accounts will be report on up to the 28th of February 2024. So a custom report will be need to be generated for this. I have asked a question in this thread (about what kind of format the TSP information should be delivered in) but it hasn't been answered yet. It's kind of ironic that we are suffering the same issue as most of the project: lack of developers. But I know that if GF we /pay/ someone, then that would not be "OK" with the community. (I guess?). I have no doubt that we will get there in the end though. These things take time. /p
-- Br, A.
Hey, On 12.08.24 13:36, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-08-12 10:47, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard Absolutely agree with Richard's points here. I think that the community has to see a bit more transparency on the foundation topic. It is much easier to release records than letting people speculate.
Agreed, and I am working on this. I forgot to mention that we are using the openSUSE TSP system, which I am unfamiliar with, (and I don't believe that even have access to except to make requests). Doug is currently on vacation, so unless there someone who can produce a report prior to his return.. the TSP side will have to wait. BUT everything TSP-related is in that database.
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
The individual data is not transferred if someone generates a generalized report with the TSP application and shares it with the community... Henne -- Henne Vogelsang http://www.opensuse.org Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
The individual data is not transferred if someone generates a generalized report with the TSP application and shares it with the community...
Henne
If the money is coming from the Geeko Foundations bank account there has to be a transfer of an individuals personal information from SUSE Group to the Geeko Foundation Else the Geeko Foundation would have no payment details to send the money to someone The terms and conditions of such transfer of sensitive personal info needs to be documented somewhere. I’d expect if not details about retention times at least documentation about how to request data removal under the GDPR. I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of sharing my bank details with SUSE just for them to give them to a UK registered company (not a charity yet..) without such documentation. Especially when that UK company has apparently incomplete public filings suggesting a governance model which seems to be something between “the three trustees can do whatever they want with the Foundations money” and “Patrick has complete control” depending on which documentation is read. I’m also not comfortable with technically contributing to any TSP tooling changes while the processes around the data is potentially unclear.
On 12/08/2024 16:51, Richard Brown wrote:
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
The individual data is not transferred if someone generates a generalized report with the TSP application and shares it with the community...
Henne
If the money is coming from the Geeko Foundations bank account there has to be a transfer of an individuals personal information from SUSE Group to the Geeko Foundation
see my other email
Else the Geeko Foundation would have no payment details to send the money to someone
The terms and conditions of such transfer of sensitive personal info needs to be documented somewhere. I’d expect if not details about retention times at least documentation about how to request data removal under the GDPR. see my other email I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of sharing my bank details with SUSE just for them to give them to a UK registered company (not a charity yet..) without such documentation. It's a Not For Profit. Which means, no profit. Get it?
Especially when that UK company has apparently incomplete public filings suggesting a governance model which seems to be something between “the three trustees can do whatever they want with the Foundations money” and “Patrick has complete control” depending on which documentation is read.
*All* Not-for-profits and Charities the trustees control the money. that is why they are called *trustees*. What is your point? And are you suggesting that the trustees, or myself ("depending on which documentation is read") are untrustworthy? And BTW, I am meeting with my accountants for fix that documentation "error" - as to the control thing. Should be updated by Thursday morning.
I’m also not comfortable with technically contributing to any TSP tooling changes while the processes around the data is potentially unclear.
I wasn't aware that you were willing to contribute in any way. Imagine for a moment what could have been achieved if you were however: we'd policies completed by now, and posted, and any this sniping never would have happened. I repeat, *help wanted*. Apply here. /p
Hi Patrick, Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. You are a Trustee. That us correct. But how many openSUSE Members requesting teavel support know about the way, that Doug is transferring their data to the bank account in UK via the Geeko Foundation? That is the point, where the GDPR requires a hint in the TSP tool equal to that for the agreementby our openSUSE Members: I agree, that my data can be processed by the Geeko Foundation in UK via bank xy for the money transfer. Such money transfer is not allowed without any agreement of the users. You have to list all participating instances. And that is the point, where you should involve a volunteering Lawyer from my point of view. Best regards, Sarah
Gesendet: Montag, den 12.08.2024 um 17:14 Uhr Von: "Patrick Fitzgerald" <patrickf@i-layer.com> An: project@lists.opensuse.org Betreff: Re: Status of the foundation?
On 12/08/2024 16:51, Richard Brown wrote:
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement?
The individual data is not transferred if someone generates a generalized report with the TSP application and shares it with the community...
Henne
If the money is coming from the Geeko Foundations bank account there has to be a transfer of an individuals personal information from SUSE Group to the Geeko Foundation
see my other email
Else the Geeko Foundation would have no payment details to send the money to someone
The terms and conditions of such transfer of sensitive personal info needs to be documented somewhere. I’d expect if not details about retention times at least documentation about how to request data removal under the GDPR. see my other email I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of sharing my bank details with SUSE just for them to give them to a UK registered company (not a charity yet..) without such documentation. It's a Not For Profit. Which means, no profit. Get it?
Especially when that UK company has apparently incomplete public filings suggesting a governance model which seems to be something between “the three trustees can do whatever they want with the Foundations money” and “Patrick has complete control” depending on which documentation is read.
*All* Not-for-profits and Charities the trustees control the money. that is why they are called *trustees*. What is your point?
And are you suggesting that the trustees, or myself ("depending on which documentation is read") are untrustworthy?
And BTW, I am meeting with my accountants for fix that documentation "error" - as to the control thing. Should be updated by Thursday morning.
I’m also not comfortable with technically contributing to any TSP tooling changes while the processes around the data is potentially unclear.
I wasn't aware that you were willing to contribute in any way.
Imagine for a moment what could have been achieved if you were however: we'd policies completed by now, and posted, and any this sniping never would have happened.
I repeat, *help wanted*. Apply here.
/p
On 12/08/2024 21:36, Sarah Julia Kriesch wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. You are a Trustee. That us correct. But how many openSUSE Members requesting teavel support know about the way, that Doug is transferring their data to the bank account in UK via the Geeko Foundation? That is the point, where the GDPR requires a hint in the TSP tool equal to that for the agreementby our openSUSE Members: I agree, that my data can be processed by the Geeko Foundation in UK via bank xy for the money transfer.
Sarah, very good point - initially I will get Doug to include this kind of phrasing when conversing with applicants. In addition I'll have a link on both the main website by the end of the day explaining this, and the POS site in time for the next outing of the card machine. Possibly
Such money transfer is not allowed without any agreement of the users. You have to list all participating instances. And that is the point, where you should involve a volunteering Lawyer from my point of view.
Best regards, Sarah
Re a lawyer, we intend to do just that - to review what we do above. Thanks for the positivity too!
Gesendet: Montag, den 12.08.2024 um 17:14 Uhr Von: "Patrick Fitzgerald"<patrickf@i-layer.com> An:project@lists.opensuse.org Betreff: Re: Status of the foundation?
On 12/08/2024 16:51, Richard Brown wrote:
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement? The individual data is not transferred if someone generates a generalized report with the TSP application and shares it with the community...
Henne If the money is coming from the Geeko Foundations bank account there has to be a transfer of an individuals personal information from SUSE Group to the Geeko Foundation
see my other email
Else the Geeko Foundation would have no payment details to send the money to someone
The terms and conditions of such transfer of sensitive personal info needs to be documented somewhere. I’d expect if not details about retention times at least documentation about how to request data removal under the GDPR. see my other email I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of sharing my bank details with SUSE just for them to give them to a UK registered company (not a charity yet..) without such documentation. It's a Not For Profit. Which means, no profit. Get it? Especially when that UK company has apparently incomplete public filings suggesting a governance model which seems to be something between “the three trustees can do whatever they want with the Foundations money” and “Patrick has complete control” depending on which documentation is read. *All* Not-for-profits and Charities the trustees control the money. that is why they are called *trustees*. What is your point?
And are you suggesting that the trustees, or myself ("depending on which documentation is read") are untrustworthy?
And BTW, I am meeting with my accountants for fix that documentation "error" - as to the control thing. Should be updated by Thursday morning.
I’m also not comfortable with technically contributing to any TSP tooling changes while the processes around the data is potentially unclear. I wasn't aware that you were willing to contribute in any way.
Imagine for a moment what could have been achieved if you were however: we'd policies completed by now, and posted, and any this sniping never would have happened.
I repeat, *help wanted*. Apply here.
/p
-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to:isupport@i-layer.com
All, I have corrected the "Persons With Significant Control" statements last week as promised. However they might take a couple of weeks to show up at Companies House, but if you are interested, all of the relevant information can be found here (eventually): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14662457 In addition, we have added a GDPR statement on both our "point of donation" system and website, stating the information will be processed by British banks. Some other changes - such as allowing SEPA (EU) and Direct Debit (UK) payments are now available for donations of up to €5000. Doug is back tomorrow, I believe, and we'll be working out how to provide more transparency on a regularly updated basis. Best regards - Patrick On 13/08/2024 10:11, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
On 12/08/2024 21:36, Sarah Julia Kriesch wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. You are a Trustee. That us correct. But how many openSUSE Members requesting teavel support know about the way, that Doug is transferring their data to the bank account in UK via the Geeko Foundation? That is the point, where the GDPR requires a hint in the TSP tool equal to that for the agreementby our openSUSE Members: I agree, that my data can be processed by the Geeko Foundation in UK via bank xy for the money transfer.
Sarah, very good point - initially I will get Doug to include this kind of phrasing when conversing with applicants.
In addition I'll have a link on both the main website by the end of the day explaining this, and the POS site in time for the next outing of the card machine. Possibly
Such money transfer is not allowed without any agreement of the users. You have to list all participating instances. And that is the point, where you should involve a volunteering Lawyer from my point of view.
Best regards, Sarah
Re a lawyer, we intend to do just that - to review what we do above.
Thanks for the positivity too!
Gesendet: Montag, den 12.08.2024 um 17:14 Uhr Von: "Patrick Fitzgerald"<patrickf@i-layer.com> An:project@lists.opensuse.org Betreff: Re: Status of the foundation?
On 12/08/2024 16:51, Richard Brown wrote:
How are we handling the data protection and GDPR issues of this arrangement? The individual data is not transferred if someone generates a generalized report with the TSP application and shares it with the community...
Henne If the money is coming from the Geeko Foundations bank account there has to be a transfer of an individuals personal information from SUSE Group to the Geeko Foundation
see my other email
Else the Geeko Foundation would have no payment details to send the money to someone
The terms and conditions of such transfer of sensitive personal info needs to be documented somewhere. I’d expect if not details about retention times at least documentation about how to request data removal under the GDPR. see my other email I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of sharing my bank details with SUSE just for them to give them to a UK registered company (not a charity yet..) without such documentation. It's a Not For Profit. Which means, no profit. Get it? Especially when that UK company has apparently incomplete public filings suggesting a governance model which seems to be something between “the three trustees can do whatever they want with the Foundations money” and “Patrick has complete control” depending on which documentation is read. *All* Not-for-profits and Charities the trustees control the money. that is why they are called *trustees*. What is your point?
And are you suggesting that the trustees, or myself ("depending on which documentation is read") are untrustworthy?
And BTW, I am meeting with my accountants for fix that documentation "error" - as to the control thing. Should be updated by Thursday morning.
I’m also not comfortable with technically contributing to any TSP tooling changes while the processes around the data is potentially unclear. I wasn't aware that you were willing to contribute in any way.
Imagine for a moment what could have been achieved if you were however: we'd policies completed by now, and posted, and any this sniping never would have happened.
I repeat, *help wanted*. Apply here.
/p -- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to:isupport@i-layer.com
-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to:isupport@i-layer.com
participants (10)
-
Attila Pinter -
Björn Bidar -
ddemaio openSUSE -
Henne Vogelsang -
Martin Schröder -
Patrick Fitzgerald -
Richard Brown -
Sarah Julia Kriesch -
Shawn W Dunn -
Simon Lees