217
edits
Difference between revisions of "Organization Proposal"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Transferred content from (briefly used) Talk page
m (→Rationale) |
(Transferred content from (briefly used) Talk page) |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service might not like it if these assets are transferred directly from a U.S. organization to a non-U.S. organization. It's possible that there are ways to avoid any problems, for example by granting or selling assets to the new organization. | The U.S. Internal Revenue Service might not like it if these assets are transferred directly from a U.S. organization to a non-U.S. organization. It's possible that there are ways to avoid any problems, for example by granting or selling assets to the new organization. | ||
= Open Issues = | |||
== Questions on rationale == | |||
The page currently defines three rationales. Before investing resources into a move, it would be good to have a high degree of certainty around any benefits of the move. | |||
The first (most activities & people being in Europe) does not define relevance: what problem is solved by moving the organisation physically closer? Does that mean that a move will introduce similar problems for those that are in the US, while we're not fixing these issues for those that are neither in the US or EU? | |||
The second ("it might be easier to obtain grants") and third ("we might be able to have more influence over European policy") are worded very cautiously (the word 'might' is used). Are we at all certain about this? Are there examples of grants or obstacles to assert influence that we're currently experiencing? As a counter-example: EU funding (through Next Generation Internet / NLnet) has already found its way to a significant amount (about 20, at the time of writing) of XMPP-related projects. | |||