[Board] Phone Call - NonProfit status

[Daniel Morissette]

Hi Brian,

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "sign an agreement 
that is so binding, and so long-term, that is not in the best interest 
of OSGeo". Are you suggesting that we should continue to seek c3 status?

My understanding of David's last letter and the exchanges I had with him 
is that with c4 or c6 we could maintain most of our current activities 
except the project sponsorship program, this is based on the responses 
we got from the IRS to our qeustions and his own experiences with 
similar situations, and not on a pre-negociated deal of any sort. Given 
the position of the IRS vs software foundations, I'd be more than happy 
to get that (c4 or c6) and move on to more interesting stuff.

With respect to the example of non-profit hospitals and medical 
research, I brought up that same example in our conference call with the 
IRS agent: I told her that what OSGeo people do to geomatics is 
equivalent to doctors performing research to cure a disease, i.e. we are 
researchers in the geospatial field and share our knowledge through 
various means in order to advance geospatial science ... her response 
was that contrary to doctors who work for the health of the population, 
we work to build software which *may* be used by private entities, that 
this is a private benefit and as such an activity not eligible to c3 status.

Deciding whether this is right or wrong is left to the reader, but if we 
have an opportunity to switch to c4 or c6 with a minimum of effort and 
get the status that we need to perform our activities then I am happy 
with that. Actually, based on what we know today, c6 or c4 might have 
been a better fit for OSGeo than c3 since the beginning anyway.

Daniel


On 13-08-22 1:07 PM, Brian Hamlin wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>
> Good day to you Daniel
>> based on the advice received from David (see his second letter),
>> switching to c4 or c6 should allow us to maintain most of our current
>> activities as well as our name.
>
>   It is true I am in the dark about the current state of the application.
>
> The non-profit status in the United States is only four years in the
> making, and represents the financial future of OSGeo in the US, am I
> surprised that it is finalized in a few weeks in summer, under these
> circumstances?
>
> Can I ask a few basic questions?  For example, your representative has
> apparently understood and negotiated the coming agreement such that
> OSGeo can keep its name. Surely this is a major win. It sets the
> expectation for the quality of the rest of the agreement right there.
>
> --
>
> All - My concern is that due to the autopilot of the IRS bureaucracy,
> ill-will of industry lobbyists, and scarcity of relevant financial
> advice, OSGeo could sign itself into an agreement that at worst has
> *ridiculous* restrictions to it, and leaves behind the possibility of
> many activities that are normal and to be encouraged. My sense is that
> those who show up late to the game of non-profit, with little resources
> in the way of sophisticated attorneys and connections in the existing
> non-profit world, get *nothing* but a "scarecrow" of a deal.
>
> Perhaps my point of view is exaggerated, but is it entirely impossible?
> Even modest "brick and mortor" non-profits have far far greater
> capacity, reach and far less restriction in many ways I would think.  I
> think it is *too hasty* to sign an agreement based on three weeks of
> emails in the middle of the summer season, with what is at stake.
>
>> My understanding is that the only thing that we may need to drop is
>> the project sponsorship program because paying developers to work on
>> code is competing with private businesses (so this is not acceptable
>> for any nonprofit),
>
> Did you know that in the United States, many major hospitals are
> non-profit?  (in fact about 4 times more likely)  Of course there are
> for-profit hospitals in the same area.. Is this then "competing" with
> for-profit hospitals for service?  I suspect the amounts of money
> involved are substantial.
>
> How is it that an established industry, with established legal
> representation can go about its activities in such a large mode, while
> new activities, with no established legal representation, must be
> crippled from the starting gate with broad and sweeping restrictions on
> its activities?
>
>
>> I thank Brian for his research efforts and do not want this be
>> perceived as ignoring him (quite the contrary), and I am sure more
>> advice could not hurt, but I do not personally have the time for this
>> in the coming weeks, so unless someone else is willing to lead this
>> new effort I think I am going to continue with the current plan.
>
> One person on a volunteer basis .... with other duties besides... the
> mind boggles at the situation...
>
> --
>
>
>
> What I did was reach out as best I could after what appeared to be the
> lackluster response to the letter from the IRS. While commending those
> that did what they did in the last month, I say that that there is no
> reason to robotic-ally sign an agreement that is so binding, and so
> long-term, that is not in the best interest of OSGeo.
>
> --
> Brian M Hamlin
> OSGeo California Chapter
>


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000