Here’s the big picture:

1. Michael Arrington originally announced to TechCrunch readers that he had made a “donation” to a “charity.” Based on his own statement indicating that his donation would be held until DataPortability was able to accept a donation as a non-profit, this was grossly inaccurate as not only is DataPortability not a “charity,” it doesn’t even exist. Arrington, of course, didn’t bother to inform his readers of this. In my book, that’s disingenuous at best, journalistically unethical at worst.

2. Months later, despite making its plans to quite clear, DataPortability still has not formed a non-profit. Yet an email from Chris Saad to the DataPortability mailing list requested permission to spend part of TechCrunch’s supposedly-not-yet-executed donation. Quite logically, either Arrington was lying about holding his donation until DataPortability was a legal entity or Saad was asking permission to spend money he didn’t have with the assumption that Arrington would provide it despite the condition he publicly set. DataPortability’s Brady Brim-DeForest claims the latter, demonstrating, in my opinion, that Saad is an idiot.

3. For all of the hypemongering people like Saad have done for DataPortability and all of the beaurocratic exercises that DataPortability’s “leadership” has engaged in, it still doesn’t legally exist. Forming a 501(c)(3) isn’t rocket science and as I pointed out, much of the bureaucracy the people involved with this “initiative” have created actually makes little to no sense in the absence of a legal entity.

Bottom line: one of Web 2.0’s most heralded “organizations”/”initiatives” is a clusterfuck of incompetence.

and that could have covered the legal fees

if you want a really great non-profit lawyer, call Dan Leer at the Entrepreneur’s Law Group – he’s helped all sorts of non-profits get their 501c3 status (and it didn’t take this long, nor was nearly this complicated)

I really liked reading this post, very instructive, and you sure know how to argue. However, what is your point? Is it really about a 12 hundred bucks fake donation? Or do you think there is something bigger happening in the background?

12 gs is no big deal, and Arrington is still allowed to say whatever he wants on his blog (I just wish less people would read it). Plus probably a majority of software development projects do not exist on paper as well.

So is there a bigger picture to this story or are you just denouncing procrastination?

1. The disclosure of a “donation” by TechCrunch to DataPortability.
2. The subsequent claim that this “donation” would not take place until DataPortability forms a legal entity.
3. The request from Chris Saad to spend money from the “donation” that he supposedly didn’t even have when he asked to spend it.

I’d love for you to point out what I’ve distorted and I’d be happy to point you to the information on which these alleged “distortions” are based.

As for Chris Saad no longer being leader of DataPortability, you might want to suggest that he change his LinkedIn profile to reflect this. I’d also point out you can’t be “Chairman” of an organization that doesn’t exist.

Finally, I would point out that you’re overcomplicating the formation of a non-profit entity. I serve on the board of a 501(c)(3) and have served on two other non-profit boards in the past so I know a thing or two about non-profits.

In my humble opinion, the “governance model” you’ve created (and all of the committees you’ve formed) not only overcomplicates things, but puts the cart before the horse.

The majority of the items in your governance model have no applicability to the by-laws you would write if you choose to form a non-profit corporation.

In fact, if you form a non-profit corporation, I frankly don’t see how your governance model is worth anything. After all, who actually ratified it? You don’t have officers and directors who are permitted under boilerplate by-laws to conduct the organization’s business, form committees, etc.

I hate to be harsh, but for all of the wonderful and effective DataPortability self-promotion, I’m astounded at just how amateurish your operation is.

Several inaccuracies
- Chris Saad is no longer leader. There is a new chair person
- you can’t have a legal entity without a governance model, which we now have. It took us a while to work out this complex issue that involved 70+ hours work. And based on our experience, we need a governance model as our previous approach of rough consensus was not working
- As Brady mentioned, since our governance model was finalised, there have been some ongoing discussions on DataPortability’s proposed inclusion in a broader community effort called IDTBD. I’m an accountant so full well know what is involved in setting up a coporation, its cost, its commitments – don’t think we haven’t taken a considered approach to this.
- DataPortability’s members are volunteers with no paid offices: something that is a big deal on how it works. For example, I am a key driver of the work, and yet for the last two months I was doing sixteen hour days on a messy client. Volunteer work has to take a backseat.

There are several more points which I think it is best we discuss via telephone/Skype. Whilst your blog is entitied to hold groups accountable, you should at least employe some journalistic rigour to get your facts right, which as they stand are distorted.

Regards,
Elias Bizannes
Vice-Chair, DataPortability.Org

Brady,

I responded to your comment on my post. Let’s keep this simple:
Chris Saad asked for permission to spend $1,200 of a donation you say is still being held by TechCrunch.

English isn’t my first language but I think I understand it pretty
well and usually people don’t ask for permission to spend money
that isn’t in their possession.

Thus I have 3 easy questions:

1. Did TechCrunch give Chris Saad the donation?

2. If yes, why has everyone felt the need to lie about this? If no,
why would Chris Saad ask for permission to spend money he didn’t have? He could have asked for permission to spend $1,200 without qualification that it was from a donation he didn’t have.

3. Hypothetically speaking, if Saad received “approval” to spend
part of the TechCrunch donation as requested, what would have been done? After all, he would have been in a position where he had been told to spend money you claim that he didn’t/doesn’t have.

I’m genuinely curious so I’m looking forward to your response.

D2.0

My response:

Hi Drama2.0,

First, thanks for reaching out directly – I really appreciate it. I hope I can help to answer some of your questions.

1. The money is still being held by TechCrunch. Because DataPortability doesn’t have a formal legal structure in place, and thus no bank account, we have no way to accept funds from TechCrunch (or from anyone else for that matter), until we do.

2. There are many situations where a ’sponsor’ might cover expenses for an organization directly out of pocket, without transferring funds to the organization itself. If the specific case you referenced had come to pass, TechCrunch would have presumably written the check directly to the vendor.

3. Because the money was earmarked by TechCrunch for DataPortability, but not in DataPortability’s possession, we would of course have had to contact TechCrunch and request that they transfer the necessary funds to the vendor. They could of course refuse – although I don’t imagine they would. The outcome of that request is clearly beyond the group’s control.

In the end, no expenditure was made, and thus, as you noted yourself, this scenario is completely hypothetical.

Let me know if you have any additional questions or would like additional clarification. I would be happy to assist if I can.

Warmest regards,
Brady