Re: Xaraya2x actions to come

So let me get this straight:

We have a zombie domestic foundation in New York whose representative to 
the authorities is a lawyer who has no ties with the Xaraya project.

The initial members of the foundation have long left the project with 
the exception of 1 or 2, leaving it unable to form quorum to take any 
major decisions as called for by its statutes.

The sole representative in the Xaraya project is yourself as the head of 
the Board of Directors, whose other members have left.

There have been no Board meetings or minutes published for years. The 
foundation's activities are not of public record.

The foundation does not have the resources to carry out its mission with 
respect to copyright, which was to collectively defend it for the 
project in case of breach or litigation.

Does this accurately reflect the situation?

So in spite of the above you are arguing because of this link: 
http://tinyurl.com/cgu57m

that anyone committing to the Xaraya core repository is obliged to share 
copyright with the foundation?

Presumably you are insisting that all new committers to the core 
repository share their copyright with the foundation?

My concerns/questions:

Why has this situation been left in such an unsatisfactory state for years?

Why is the fiction being maintained that there is some benefit to anyone 
here? If there is, whose benefit is it?

How can we attract new developers with a situation such as this? Isn't 
this damaging to the project?

Why is the foundation not being wound down? Is it because you are not in 
a position to do so legally? Is it a question of resources?

Who can take decisions for the foundation? Is it you alone? What happens 
when you leave or in case of incapacity?

 >I specifically stayed on as (more or less passive) director to keep 
the >copyright entity legally valid until a better solution was decided 
 >upon. There has been some communication in the past with the division 
 >of corporatins to enquire abouth minimal life support.

What better solution can this be that has not been identified over the 
years? Is there a roadmap somewhere for resolving this situation? I 
realize there has been talk about adherence to the FSF and such, but 
isn't it so that transfer of the foundation's copyright would require a 
decision that there is no quorum to make?

And frankly, whatever decision is made is solely legally in the hands of 
the foundation's owners/members/representatives. The committers to the 
repository who are not foundation members have no say, as I recall.

As someone who as you know spent (along with yourself) a lot of time to 
set up the copyright sharing scheme, I now find that, years later I and 
the other committers still have no say in bringing this failed 
initiative to some sort of a resolution, not because of anyone's ill 
will I would argue, but because legally we have no cause.

Instead, we have a situation which effectively precludes anyone in good 
conscience from recommending newcomers to participate in the project, in 
light of this legacy burden.

Thanks for any feedback on this.

Marc