Subject:
|
Re: Charter Org for LDraw.org (was: Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:00:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1930 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> [snippity-do-dah]
> > The intent of a formal org in my mind is not to bog decisions down in red
> > tape. In fact, it is to free us, to establish a clearly defined process for
> > decision making, and clear legitimate authority to back decisions up, which
> > we do not have right now. It is to facilitate the further promotion and
> > evangelism of LDraw tools to new users, to give us a springboard from which
> > to spread the word about our free tools to others.
> >
> > We need to move towards a formal nonprofit organization because:
>
> Whoa there! There is a *huge* difference between a 'formal organization'
> and a 'formal nonprofit organization'. If you were using 'nonprofit'
> informally, please *don't*. 'nonprofit' typically means a huge headache
> for whatever poor soul gets to work on making it happen. And is usually
> only advisable when larger amounts of money are involved.
>
> I pretty much agree with your arguments for a formal org.
Cool.
I put 'nonprofit' in to emphasize the nature of the organization. While I've
taken a cursory look at information on "nonprofit corporations," I'm not
totally aware of alternatives. Obviously, we want to travel down the route
that creates the least headache.
I am occasionally talking to organizers of ILTCO to find out how they are
doing things. I think using a LEGO community example is a good way to go.
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
