Dear all,
I also would like to thank the Eclipse Foundation staff for organizing the call and this initiative.
With regards to the charter review, I was unaware that the time-window for comments
opened some time before our call and is scheduled to close already mid of next week. This is a quite tight deadline and I hope we will be able to jointly review and refine the charter in time. Maybe it is worthwhile considering starting
the 14-day review period from the date of the recent call to
get everybody onboard and allow for sufficient time to gather feedback.
In any case, in order to move ahead, I have added some comments to the draft charter document.
Have a nice weekend!
Best regards
Georg
From:
open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Joe Murray via open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 24. May 2024 at 19:10
To: Open Regulatory Compliance Working Group <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joe Murray <joe.murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] Nokia comments to the draft charter
Thank you to Eclipse for stepping up and organizing the important work outlined for the Open Regulatory Compliance Working Group.
I'm writing as a senior member of the CiviCRM open source community to support Timo's points.
CiviCRM is used by over 10,000 non-profits around the world, including a number of notable open source organizations like the Open Source Initiative and the Python Software Foundation.
I provided a comment on the draft language asking for changes to "Steward Members are organisations that are recognised not-for-profits in their country of registration and host open source software projects made available under an OSI-approved
licence(s)." CiviCRM uses the OSI approved copyleft AGPLv3 license, but it is not a recognised not-for-profit in its country of registration. When our 19 year old community was creating a legal entity, the US government was in a several year period where the
IRS was refusing to grant open source communities 501(c)3 status. So following legal advice our core team founders, after getting feedback from some community members, decided to incorporate as a for profit entity in California.
Working with non-profits constrains the professional fees but not the security needs of the CiviCRM service provider community. There are many CiviCRM installations including for political parties and donor portals that have over a million
contacts. So echoing Timo, I'd like Open Source Steward to be added, and for there to be transparency around the budget and the justification for the fee structure.
Joe Murray, PhD (he/him)
Elected Member, CiviCRM Community Council
We respectfully acknowledge the autonomy of Indigenous peoples, and that JMA Consulting is located on the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the
Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples which is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Mississaugas of the Credit.
First of all we’d like to express our appreciation to Eclipse stepping up and organising the open source community’s work in relation to CRA, as well as for the call earlier this week to share and discuss
the latest on Eclipse Open Regulatory Compliance WG.
Understanding the WG charter is in public review (was a bit of a surprise, found out only at the call) ending May 29th we wanted to provide our comments. In this message we wanted to limit ourselves
to the most pressing ones. In our view
1. The WG – and thus the charter – should focus on the work necessary in the context of the CRA. This is what we have now at hand and need to
concentrate on. Additional regulation related work may be added as needed. In addition, the work should focus on open source, not try to address generic sw development and CI/CD.
2. Open Source Steward is missing from the charter. The term should be added, and the WG shall aim at definitions that would support the various ways open source communities are organized currently. More specifically,
not all open source today is developed in the auspices of foundations as they are currently known. Those other current ways shall be supported going forward and whatever the definitions are they should allow for other future as of yet unknown ways without
the need to change the specifications/regulation. Specifications shall attempt to not ossify open source ecosystem.
3. Clear explanation on to what the money that is collected through WG membership fees is planned to be used, and what is the justification for the proposed fee structure.
Looking forward to your thoughts and wishing all relaxing weekend.
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://accounts.eclipse.org
|
