[Members] Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria

Hi Eddie, Thanks for the reply, and for raising this. Your point made me think about whether simplicity is already captured in the criteria, or whether it represents something distinct. When I drafted "Transition Cost & Operational Overhead", I had cost and administrative burden in mind. Your message pointed at something subtly different: the risk that a structurally complex setup could be fragile, even if it isn't particularly expensive (in money or resources) to run. That said, I don't think we need a new criterion for this. Given that our proposals range from full EU reconstitution to lightweight options, simpler proposals will naturally score well on Operational Overhead and the more complex ones won't. I suggest that we take your message as a useful prompt: when we get to the evaluation phase, assessors should keep structural simplicity and resilience in mind when applying that criterion, not just time and cost. Does that work for you? Kind regards,   Guus On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 1:50 PM E.M. via Members <members(a)xmpp.org> wrote: > Hey Guus, > > Thanks for cycling this! > > Besides I believe these are good criterias to start with, I got just > reminded I wanted to add one suggestion and that is to consider to choose a > setup that is simple or at least choose the paths we can go in that > direction. I don't want to say it is simple, because it is not, but state > to keep that in mind. On the otherside looking at our resources we should > not make this an overkill. > > So what first XSF practices could show that things work for us (or not)? > > Cheers, > Eddie > > May 21, 2026 7:11:41 PM Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinderen(a)gmail.com>om>: > >> Hi all, >> >> As it has now been a couple of weeks without additional feedback, I would >> like to move towards a more concrete and structured evaluation framework >> based on the criteria that I shared earlier. >> >> I believe it is useful to distinguish between three categories of > criteria: >> >>    - *Foundational / non-negotiable criteria*: areas where significant >>    weaknesses could effectively disqualify a proposal. >>    - *Operational criteria*: important practical considerations that > affect >>    how well the structure functions in practice. >>    - *Optimization criteria*: desirable qualities that are valuable, but >>    probably not decisive on their own. >> >> My tentative prioritization would place risk/liability, sustainability, >> governance, and legal operability in the top tier, since weaknesses there >> could outweigh advantages elsewhere. >> >> International reach and financial considerations would come next, while >> transition cost, operational flexibility, and broader strategic alignment >> seem important, but secondary to getting the fundamentals right. >> >> Concretely, I would currently group the criteria as follows: >> >> >> *Foundational* >> >>    - *Risk & Liability Management* - looks at how the structure addresses >>    legal, financial, and operational risks, including liability exposure > for >>    board members, contributors, and the organization itself. >>    - *Governance & Member Control* - evaluates how decisions are made >>    within the organization, including the roles of members and the board > and >>    how voting rights are allocated. >>    - *Continuity & Long-Term Sustainability* - evaluates whether the >>    structure can support ongoing operations smoothly during and after any >>    transition, including maintaining organizational stability. >>    - *Legal & Regulatory Complexity* - considers the requirements and >>    processes for forming and maintaining the entity under the laws of the >>    chosen jurisdiction, including compliance, reporting, and language >>    obligations. >> >> *Operational* >> >>    - *International Orientation & Reach* - considers how well the > structure >>    accommodates contributors, members, and operations across multiple >>    countries. >>    - *Financial Flexibility & Funding Options* - examines whether the >>    structure allows XSF to manage finances effectively, including holding >>    funds, receiving donations, or engaging in grants or other funding >>    mechanisms. >> >> *Optimization* >> >>    - *Transition Cost & Operational Overhead* - assesses estimated setup >>    costs, ongoing administrative responsibilities, and any additional >>    operational effort required to implement the structure. >>    - *Alignment with Strategic Goals* - evaluates how the proposed >>    structure supports XSF's overall mission, objectives, and long-term >>    strategic direction. >>    - *Flexibility for Future Changes* - assesses whether the structure > can >>    adapt to changes in membership, governance, operations, or > jurisdictional >>    requirements without requiring a complete reorganization. >>    - *IP & Asset Transfer Feasibility* - looks at how easily intellectual >>    property, trademarks, and other assets can be transferred to or > managed >>    within the proposed structure. >> >> I have two concrete requests: >> >>    1. For all members: please challenge or validate both the criteria >>    themselves and the proposed prioritization. >>    2. For people who submitted proposals: please update your proposal to >>    explain how the proposed legal structure performs against each of > these >>    criteria. >> >> My expectation is that the Board will eventually use both the agreed >> criteria and the proposal evaluations against them to compare proposals > in >> a more structured way and, ultimately, select a preferred direction. >> >> Kind regards, >> >>   Guus >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 12:36 AM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> >> wrote: >> >>> The list looks good enough to me. >>> >>> On 5/7/26 12:55 PM, Guus der Kinderen wrote: >>> >>>> Below is an initial draft. We are not asking you to evaluate the >>>> proposals yet, only to help us refine this list: >>>> >>>>   * Governance & Member Control - evaluates how decisions are made >>>>     within the organization, including the roles of members and the >>>>     board and how voting rights are allocated. >>>>   * Legal & Regulatory Complexity - considers the requirements and >>>>     processes for forming and maintaining the entity under the laws of >>>>     the chosen jurisdiction, including compliance, reporting, and >>>>     language obligations. >>>>   * IP & Asset Transfer Feasibility - looks at how easily intellectual >>>>     property, trademarks, and other assets can be transferred to or >>>>     managed within the proposed structure. >>>>   * Transition Cost & Operational Overhead - assesses estimated setup >>>>     costs, ongoing administrative responsibilities, and any additional >>>>     operational effort required to implement the structure. >>>>   * International Orientation & Reach - considers how well the > structure >>>>     accommodates contributors, members, and operations across multiple >>>>     countries. >>>>   * Continuity & Long-Term Sustainability - evaluates whether the >>>>     structure can support ongoing operations smoothly during and after >>>>     any transition, including maintaining organizational stability. >>>>   * Financial Flexibility & Funding Options - examines whether the >>>>     structure allows XSF to manage finances effectively, including >>>>     holding funds, receiving donations, or engaging in grants or other >>>>     funding mechanisms. >>>>   * Flexibility for Future Changes - assesses whether the structure can >>>>     adapt to changes in membership, governance, operations, or >>>>     jurisdictional requirements without requiring a complete >>> reorganization. >>>>   * Risk & Liability Management - looks at how the structure addresses >>>>     legal, financial, and operational risks, including liability >>>>     exposure for board members, contributors, and the organization >>> itself. >>>>   * Alignment with Strategic Goals - evaluates how the proposed >>>>     structure supports XSF's overall mission, objectives, and long-term >>>>     strategic direction. >>> >>> >