General comments about README.md contents

[jclingan]

This is feedback on the README.

• Goals
  • Content Creation: "Content creation" feels too generic/vague and not tangible from a "functional bits" perspective. I'm assuming that content would be in the context of projects. I'm stuck at finding a better word at the moment.
  • Ecosystem Health: I'd include "Active participation", although that may be a sub-bullet of longevity. Should there be a "Project Lifecycle?" What if a project has had no activity in a year? What is the Foundation going to do?
  • Open Source Assurance: Will there be any limits with regards to tooling and where code is hosted? For example, the code may be open source, but what if the tooling or hosting is proprietary? There will be a balance between "Open Source Assurance" with "Project Autonomy" as discussions progress.
  • Project Autonomy: This is huge, IMHO. Every project is different and needs different levels of process. The needs of the Foundation should not outweigh the needs of the projects. Legal constraints need to be spelled out up front - Copyright, Trademark, and Intellectual Property. BTW, as I jot down these thoughts, I can see a resulting FAQ.
• Unique Characteristics:
  • Preservation of Project Identity: This is a really big one for me. Forced compliance with Foundation policies needs to be as narrowly defined as possible. Trademarks and domains are specifically called out, but somewhere (FAQ?) Intellectual Property needs to be clarified. Based on discussions and what is laid out here, it is up to the project.
• Focus of The Commonhaus Foundation
  • I'm not a fan of this wording: "In essence, we dodge politics and paperwork, aiming to make every ounce of our energy count." It feels like it is a knock against the things not in the vision, and those remain important venues. I'd either leave it out or replace it with something like "In essence, we focus on being a home to code-centric projects"
• Community Affiliation:
  • No Pay to Play: How are legal needs funded like Trademark validation and such? How will the Foundation fund any legal (perhaps IP) challenges for a project under its umbrella? This isn't really spelled out in the "Sponsorship" section or elsewhere in this doc. I don't see it specified in other docs either.

[ebullient]

Thank you for this! I'll have a go at making some wording changes.

• You're absolutely right about tone (re: focus especially). You should see what I had originally! I thought I managed to indicate it was necessary work (just not here), but you're right and I'll make the suggested change.

• Your FAQ/legal questions are spot-on, and I need help defining reasonable (and enforceable) answers to those questions. This is the biggest feasibility hurdle, and is something we need to explore in earnest.

• How we manage IP is a big question. Trademarks are in there, because that is a well-trod path with lots of precedent and was easy to snag. How we do some of these other things... well, I need more brains thinking about it.

• Re: Pay to Play, there is a hole here for sure. I am starting to think about how to call out "benefits to projects" and "benefits to users" to explain why and where money matters. One thing that does bother me with existing foundations is that a lot seems to go to management of the foundation itself (you need directors, you need staff, you need...), and not as much to sustaining member projects (which reduces the "benefits to the projects" list). Legal counsel and protection, I think, is something that member projects could value, if that benefit is defined properly (which is also your point, I think)

[starksm64]

I would expect IP to be handled by the software license and some minimal terms of use/contributor agreement. We don't handle specifications, so there should be no flow of copyright or IP to a foundation. The original authors maintain those rights.

[starksm64]

On trademarks, what is the minimal effort? There should be no reassignment of any trademarks an incoming project has as that it just a waste of money. All logos and marketing content should be under liberal use licenses.

[ebullient]

Minimal effort, but holding resources like that is a service that SFC, SPI, OpenCollective, and LF all provide: a neutral holding place for trademarks, logos, domains, etc. In this specific case, it would simplify transitions, as those details (that most don't want to deal with) are held by a neutral third party (that also ensures the fees get paid). Pretty standard fare.

[ebullient]

See new BOOTSTRAPPING.md for modifications to kick things off.

Time frame is a variable

[kenfinnigan]

These questions should now be resolved in the latest set of by-laws. If anything above is not resolved, please open a PR with suggested changes to the by-laws/docs.