On this page:
Announcement
WHAT: Steering Group Teleconference
WHEN: Monday, April 21, 2008 at 21:00 - 22:00 GMT
- San Francisco: 2pm
- Boston: 5pm
- London: 10pm
- Berlin: 11pm
- Hong Kong: 5am (April 22)
- Tokyo: 6am (April 22)
- Sydney: 7am (April 22)
WHO: Open to any contributors
WHERE:
PROPOSED AGENDA:
- Introductions
- Chris Saad Background on Legal Formalization
- Do we need to legalize the project status?
- If so, should we do it ourselves, or under another banner?
- If we do it, what is the process and who will shepherd it?
- If we hook up to another entity, how will we select it?
MEETING OUTPUT:
- Process Shepherd / Facilitator
- Next Steps
- Milestone Dates
Minutes
Attendees:
Real Name (Skype Name)
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Chris Saad (chris.saad)
Bill Sager (yoda2unow)
Christian Sholtz (herrtopf)
Ben Metcaffe (dotben)
David Rudin (drudin)
Brett McDowell (myidiym)
Nancy Cole ()
Daniela Barbosa (medanielabarbosa)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
Elias (elias.bizannes)
Phil Wolff (evanwolf)
Drummond Reed (drummondreed)
Robyn Tippins (duzins)
Minutes:
A. Introductions
B. Chris Saad Background on Legal Formalization
+ TechCrunch donating money sparked need for structure to accept it.
C. Do we need to legalize the project status?
+ We need a way to accept funding
+ Need to protect possible IP assets
+ Rough consenus is that some legal entity is needed.
+ The questions are the what/when/how about it.
D. If so, should we do it ourselves, or under another banner?
E. If we do it, what is the process and who will shepherd it?
F. If we hook up to another entity, how will we select it?
+ Are we needing to accept donations as a charity (eg. 501.c.3)? Consensus: we need to be able to accept donations, but the jury is still out as to whether or not we need to be a 501(c)3 charity to do so.
+ Nancy: there are ways to accept money to cover costs other than a legal charity, possible project within another entity (eg. "Tide Center" http://www.tidescenter.org/services/fiscal-sponsorship/overview/index.html)
+ Brett: If the community agrees that we cannot leave the financial administration to the sole dominion of a single volunteer then we do need some kind of legal umbrella to serve these functions. But we don't have to wait until DP incorporates or chooses its long-term host organization to function (see Liberty Alliance proposal).
+ David: Possibly set up a D.B.A. entity to put some legal teeth around a person as a short term solution.
+ Ben & Chris: Not sure it's a good idea to put one person in charge.
+ Brett: Proposed that Liberty Alliance can direct IEEE-ISTO to act as the association management host for DP's financial and IP needs in the short-term. This comes at no cost to DP. It is just a good faith offer from Liberty Alliance to support the DP movement. DP might want to be a program of IEEE ISTO (501.c.6 organization) in the future but accepting this administrative solution in the short-term does not in any way lock DP into that outcome.
+ David: Need to look into the particulars of Brett's proposal to comment.
+ Brady: Should we explore other type of incorporations?
+ Nancy & David: 4 to 6 month process for incorporation, plus fees (eg. filing costs, legal, etc.)
+ Brady: Where we incorporate has various additional pros / cons.
+ Chris: Could we convey rights (eg. copyright, IP) to IEEE ISTO for holding, too?
+ David: Copyright IP is one thing, but patent IP is another.
+ Brett: Clarifying that the option is a short-term solution, simply a place to park funds for now. But yes, even under this short-term solution DP could have IEEE-ISTO hold IP on its behalf and IEEE-ISTO will be contractually bound to allow DP to move all that IP somewhere else if it wishes to at a later date.
+ Ben & Chris: Just want to clarify a need to be cautious.
+ Brady: Brought up Harry Halpin's proposal to join the W3C (http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/Relationship+to+W3C)
+ Brett: DP becoming a W3C Working Group has various pros/cons, too and should be explored. But DP becoming a W3C Working Group is more of a long-term solution vs. a near-term solution that can easily be changed at any time.
+ Elias: We've formalized a Governance / Workflow Taskforce that will solve financial dispersement issues. (http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/Workflow+taskforce)
+ Nancy: Parking funds in the interim is OK, but may be a problem getting the funds back out without DP being formalized (ie. process is called an "equivelancy document")
+ Brett: The Equivalency issue doesn't apply to IEEE-ISTO since it is not a charity. But one thing that is an issue is DP having a clear way to identify appropriate decision makers for the disbursement of funds.
+ Nancy: Proposes an education opportunity to explain the options to the group.
+ Brady: Would need to be formalized as a "non profit" to receive "donations" from the web site.
+ David: If we agree the ultimate goal is to become a separate entity, we might consider biting the bullet and doing it rather than doing a stop-gap.
+ Brett: IEEE-ISTO was designed to be a host to industry groups who need a legal framework and other administrative services, even those who might choose to incorporate at a later date. So IEEE-ISTO is well practiced at turning over all cash and IP to their programs if/when they stop using IEEE-ISTO has a host.
+ Drummond: Identity Commons is another possible solution.
+ Elias: Points to research: 1) types of entities 2) potential costs (and non-financial costs)
+ Chris: Set up http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityorg
Action Items:
+ Creation of an Organization Evaluation TaskForce
+ Taskforce chairman: Brady Brim-DeForest
+ Will shepherd research and report back to the Steering Group with options fleshed out.
+ Postings will be made to all groups about process to illicit wide involvement.
+ Next milestone: Monday, April 28th, 2008 Steering Call with process update.
+ In the interim, Elias will continue with the Governance Taskforce
Conference call recording, back channel transcript
Next meetings
- Monday, April 28th, 2008 - 21:00 GMT
Feedback on the meeting itself
Posted by
Trent, it may be too early to suggest this -- maybe it's for next steps. Whatever you think is best. I'd like to add to our list of considerations the idea of an advisory board. This would be composed of people who either cannot commit time to serving on the board or who are not able, for whatever reason, to be on the board. We've done this in some charities where I've served on the board, and it works very well -- especially if it's set up with the understanding that the advisory board members are available for consultation in their areas of expertise or to help build a bridge to someone or something. Thanks.