Governance can be set up in a number of ways, depending on the charter, with power allocated to different stakeholders in different configurations. See slide 42 from Chris's presentation. As a Rust user, I would follow the creation of such a charter with great interest.

https://www.slideshare.net/caniszczyk/bringing-an-open-sourc...

Moving away from Mozilla, regardless of destination, presents an opportunity for the most powerful stakeholders within the community to exert greater influence, many of whom I would be less comfortable with than Mozilla.

To be honest I don't know what this means. I was expected a yes or no answer. Does the Linux Foundation have final say over the organization or does its members?

Projects can be set up so that one entity (possibly a company which is a Linux Foundation Member) exerts dominant influence. This is one reason that many companies are comfortable bringing projects to the LF — and that's arguably better on balance for the Open Source ecosystem than them keeping those projects in-house and their governance murky.

Rust, though, is already at Mozilla, whose influence seems to be benign.

I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation?

> I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation?

I never thought about this, but TESS says it's Moco, which is what I'd expect.

I wonder if it's reasonable to donate that trademark to the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation and to then formalize a charter laying out Rust governance.

For what it's worth I would have greater confidence in such an arrangement than I would in a 501(c)(6) Business League version of a Rust Foundation, which would in my view undermine independence.

I don't think that helps accomplish one of the main goals of this effort, which is to demonstrate independence.