> Article II > Members > Section 2.1 Members. This foundation shall have no members.
Well that's clear at least.
> Article III > Board of directors > Section 3.1 Powers. Subject to the provisions of law, the activities and affairs of the Foundation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the Board of Directors. […]
@eragon Well… to save what? Like the software can entirely be managed by a different organisation and I think should, even for the activism parts where it's to get an open internet.
And it could even be a corporation and still have membership and votes (see cooperatives), which is quite why I think association vs. foundation vs. corporation is quite a worthless distinction.
@lanodan yeah by funds I meant more as an "it owns stuff". I think of them as smart contracts without blockchain - they have a statute ("bylaws" in English but almost no other language calls it that) that governs what it can do with the assets it owns. And the foundation itself has no owners.
@lanodan what i'm saying is there's no need for it to have members.
I think the distinction is more along the lines of who do they serve. An association serves its members' common interest. A foundation serves its written purpose. A corporation serves its shareholders.
@wolf480pl Associations can take a *lot* of different shapes, some are basically so restrictive in terms of members it's similar to Mozilla Foundation, while others have basically everyone ever interacting with them being members.
This is why the bylaws are important. Association vs. foundation vs. corporation is about legal framework like taxes, not about things like governance.
@wolf480pl How does Finland even enters the picture here? Mozilla Foundation is under the USA legal framework, they aren't defined under international law at all.