# Dat Open Collective Migration - Meeting 1

- Mauve: ANything I missed?
- Franz: Current plan seems good. Doesn't look like anyone was opposed - usinng open collective with new sponsor. One thing we need sooner than later - something like a board, list of few people with names and addresses with responsibility. SHould prioritize list, figure out how this list can change again. THis would be like an intermediate government. Exist as last board of CS&S, inital board for new entity to move things.
- Mauve: Kevin?
- Kevin: I think it makes sense to me. What are the reasons for leaving CS&S, are there requirements why we have to?
- Franz: Two things: One is the fixed requirement of CS&S to have revenue at least 25k per year and pay 15 percent on that. Like a fixed fee of 5k EU, which we can't guarantee in the current state. Other part is that a few people in the recent contacts with CS&S kinda got the message that they're not interested in keeping the Dat Foundation. It was all a bit formal, sounded supportive but wasn't much about finding a way to continue at CS&S.
- Kevin: Hopeing it wasn't because of a misunderstanding of them assuming we wanted to move.
- Franz: Might be good to ask again? Asked Joe, he didn't reply to the question.
- Kevin: Defs, the 25k thing is difficult. Means someone needs to write grants continuously to get the funding each year. Seems like the absolute reason. A week after the call where we talked, Karissa got a new grant for the Rust impl. DO you know if that grant can count?
- Franz: With the Dat Rust grant, it could count if really wanted that, but we need some entity as an entity for some of the money, but the major part can be transferred to people without intermediary. Putting it all through CS&S would reduce the grant by 15%
- Kevin: How did the grant for NLNet come?
- Franz: It's EU money, privacy and trust enhancing tech thing. Karissa got the grant last year for encrypted storage for hyperdrives. But then it turned out they'd be more itnerested in funding a rust port. https://nlnet.nl/PET/ It's money fromt he EU. Awarded NLNet some larger amount to spread across projects.
- Kevin: Who did the proposal?
- Franz: Karissa mostly.
- Kevin: Gonna miss the non profit brands on CS&S that we could say we worked with. Like Knight Foundation and Author P Sloan Foundation. Own experience, when they get large they get viewed in two categories. Easy for project to get sorted into "bad pirate tool", by constantly championing and being visible about good things from the tech can be used for along privacy/security/science/taking control of data, that nerrative is set so well along side the logos of all the respected non profits. Haven't been high enough visibility to worry yet, but if we get popullar in the next two years. That alone is worth it. Would be worth the 5%
- Mauve: We should check if we can keep the history.
- Kevin: Very important, can change people's minds
- Franz: Should we keep the name or change it? If we consider it an org with all projects, maybe projects that use the tech could have their logos there too. Could have a few more logos. All EU grants basically.
- Kevin: Logos all over the place. Sets people's mindset a lot
- Mauve: There's a bunch of resources like netlify and cloudflare that need to be migrated.
- Franz: Started with mailchimp acocunt being created by Paul and Diego. Paul paid for now, could be centered under some shared account thing. Likely people on the board having passwords to stuff. Would be good to look into a good account sharing policy for all this stuff. It happens easily that it's jsut one or two people that have the password to something, can get annoying. Really hard to find someone to have access
- Mauve: Can use teams usually
- Franz: Consider shared account.
- Mauve: Dat project has tha for email sending to multiple people
- Mauve: Feeling sabout open soruce collective
- Franz: Sounds good. Does everything go through open collective or should we have our own bank account? Looks like 5% for open collective and 5% for fiscal sponsor. Is it necessarily coupled? Might be beneficial to have the bank account in the future. I thinnk most things could work well. The default could be good
- Kevin: Do they have people we can talk to? Similar to Danielle and Joe. How much do we know about their org already? DO they have other projects
- Mauve: Babel, Scuttlebutt. We could talk to Scuttlebutt folks.
- Franz: Seems their main model is just the fiscal sponsorship but not things like reviewing grant applications and stuff or introducing you to funders. They don't really offer that. They say they have relationships with sponsors. Dunno how much is behind that part.
- Kevin: Might be nice to have conversations, CS&S takes a lot but we get real people behind it. If this org takes 5% but is just a website, should see the value there. If anybody at SSB has dealt with them that'd be awesome. One referral would be enough.
- Mauve: Sounds like we don't need to look for other ones until we talk to them?
- Kevin: yeah
- Franz: Do we need a process or a proposal of some sort for this initial board? Like raise hands on the mailing list. Was done earlier, but was put on hold because it was unclear. How big should the board should be?
- Mauve: Would be nice if beign on the board wasn't required for using the grant stuf. More of a volunteering if you want to take on some responsiblities
- Franz: Yeah, there's a board for final decision making, but the idea is to have all discussions in the consortium calls. Maybe some criteria for being there? Keep all discussions in there. Only use Board power when there's a conflict about what to do or short term decision making. So it's not a closed group that meets and decides but instead that the discussions are public or semi-public. In some form that's straightforward to join. Not too much in hands of board.
- Kevin: WOuld be great to actually have a board, even if they don't make decisions. I hope they don't make any decisions that the group as a whole generally agrees.
- Mauve: WOuld be nice to lean closer to consensus, like the stuff node does with votes being a last ditch effort.
- Franz: Would be nice to aim for diversity in the board. Not in a good position in regards to that. One step could be to enforce a minimum diversity. Not sure what we can handle
- Mauve: Should talk about it at next consortium call, maybe we should bring people in.
- Kevin: Question. What's it called? Is it dat foundation dat community foundation? The projects got renamed from Dat to Hyper. WOuld it still be called dat or hyper?
- Mauve: WOuld prefer to stay with Dat so that we don't set the precedent of stuff beinng able to change without consulting with us
- Kevin: Would agree with keeping the name, lots of people know the brand and they know that it's called Dat. To change the brand would not leverage the value that we've built. Additionaly to what you said about keeping it
- Franz: Also wouldn't rename it. Some confusion already there, likely can't be undone, talks and issues abour what is Dat, but I think we'll have to have that conversation anyway. Fill out the what is dat thing again. Not too much of a problem. It's a community of people that build tools based off of hypercore protocol. Dat Community Foundation? Still stick with Dat. Think it'd be a question of how much HYperdivision folks buy into the process. Paul seems to be onboard, Mathias and Andrew not sure. Would stay with it.
- Kein: Paul on board with dat name?
- Franz: And consortium and stuff
- Kevin: If it's jsut the community and projects building on top, even if there are no dat repos or software, I think that's still enough and still good to call that Dat, renaming it creates something new that nobody has heard of and will get ignored.
- Mauve: Maybe even keep it as dat foundation but now it's goverened by the people.
- Franz: THink about a new logo. There's no dat protocol so that protocol handler doesn't make sense. Or that adds to the confusion.
- Mauve: Would be good to have a GH issue to track.
- Franz: Yeah, people could make issues for individual things. Could change stuff more after
- Kevin: Logo is the hexagon? Only thing we could mess up is changing the existing thing, could throw people off.
- Mauve: can we do more stuff in public
- Franz: Agree, to keeping more in public and private only for reason. Weird to have email in public.
- Kevin: Agree. Email in hackmd good.
- Franz: Are you on discord? WOuld be easier for me.
- Franz: If we keep the name dat foundation, I'm guessing they'll want to have clear messaging that this new dat foundation isn't tied to them anymore. At least when we changed the mailing list that the first message had a note that it wasn't tied to CS&S

## TODO

- Figure out board membership / how many people / who wants in
- Check that we can keep logos of grant givers from past.
- Can we add EU logos from NLNet?
- Check with projects to see if we can get their logos too
- Figure out which resources should be migrated
- Consider board members having access to resources
- Consider primary account? Like shared email address
- COnsider if bank account could be made with fiscal sponsor
- Reach out to Open Source Collective to talk to them.
- Reach out to SSB to talk about Open Source Collective
- Logo without :// would be good.

## CS&S

- Reach out, explain what we talked about
- Talk about fiscal sponsor we chose and ask if there's anything missing or if they have suggetions
- Schedule a call after their response to see how it goes
- Have people from this group in call

## Open Source Collective

- Reach out to them.
- Explain our situation
- Reach out after CS&S reply
- Try scheduling a call with us