I guess my first question is this: what's the problem we're trying\r\nto solve? What does going through the time, trouble, and expense of\r\nincorporation buy us over what we've got as an informal group?
\r\n\r\nRegarding 501(c) status, an organization chartered as a forum for\r\ndiscussion and for information dissemination (roughly: zIWT and TWIT),\r\nshould be pretty straightforward. There are lots of such organizations\r\nwhich are involved in political discussion. They have to be careful not\r\nto take official sides in debates. So long as we have people speaking\r\non their own behalf, not the organization, I don't see a major problem.\r\nAdvocating FS in general, with a focus on technology, seems aligned with\r\n501(c) goals as I understand 'em. Note too that I generally\r\ndon't read the political "discussion" here, a term I use\r\nadvisedly as a large part of this appears to be ranting from various\r\nparties. Much of which I don't agree with. Much of which I frankly\r\nfind too unspeakably stupid to deserve response, so take this as my\r\nblanket answer.
\r\n\r\nBut I come back to why we're doing this: what isn't happening or\r\nisn't happening smoothly currently? I'm all in favor of the minimum\r\nlevel of organization rquired to make things work, and we're about there\r\nat the moment.
\r\n