Xfce Foundation status

[Gilbert Sullivan]

On 10/14/2010 11:15 PM, Auke Kok wrote:
> On 10/14/2010 02:36 PM, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> * There is one clause about where the raised money should go in case
>>> the e.V. is abandoned. The KDE people have decided to forward all
>>> their money to UNESCO. I have come up with a few alternatives.
>>> Which of the following organizations would you prefer the money to
>>> be handed over to in case the e.V. is closed?
>>>
>>> UNESCO, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, WWF or OLPC?
>>>
>>> You can of course make your own suggestions if you want to.
>>
>> I've seen some discussion about "provocative" organizations. Heck, the
>> whole idea of FOSS is provocative to all those folks and governments who
>> seem delighted to spend gobs of money on crappy software in order to get
>> the latest "shiny" stuff.
>>
>> You could support the Sea Shepherds for all I care. I'm an old hippie,
>> and any effort or contribution which either reduces the suffering of
>> people or the planet, or which sticks a thumb in the eye of the
>> "establishment" (and I mean just about ANY establishment) is peachy with
>> me. Naturally, it would be nice if this provision accommodates the
>> sensibilities of the greatest number of Xfce's technical and monetary
>> contributors.
>
> The whole idea about not picking a (potentially) provocative group to
> donate to is to make sure that nobody has a problem with the eventual
> abandonment of the foundation if it ever happens. I can only imagine
> that after 10 more years of UNIX desktop development, groups like the
> KDE and GNOME foundation might have potentially created some new
> enemies, and now people would fight fiercely against the dissemination
> of your foundation, just because of that.
>
> So, the safest thing to do is to pick the common denominator, a fund
> that everyone agrees on is good to give the remainder funds to.
>
> Auke

Oh, I understood the reasoning. I also understand that most worthy 
causes are provocative to someone. In this context common denominators 
have a tendency to be better funded than some less popular causes for 
precisely the reasons that have been given voice in this thread.

Nonetheless, if the membership of the proposed organization should feel 
disposed to direct that the proceeds of the organization's possible 
future dissolution to to a less popular cause, I don't see why it 
shouldn't be written that way in the articles.

I don't object to the FSF -- or to any of the other popular 
organizations. As a matter of fact I support the ones which have been 
listed wholeheartedly. I'm just saying that choosing an organization to 
be recipient of the Xfce Foundation's funds in case of the 
organization's dissolution based upon concerns about who might fight 
that dissolution strikes me as a rather dreary way to look at things.

Xfce (and free software) wouldn't exist if the developers and backers 
weren't attracted by risk-taking. I don't think there's any reason why 
the supporting foundation should be averse to taking a stand on 
something provocative -- but if, and only if, the organization's 
membership approves of the stand.

Clearly, this is a moot point since a clear majority of respondents seem 
to be choosing FSF. I support that notion.