Matrix.org Foundation accounts filing overdue by three months(github.com)
github.com
Matrix.org Foundation accounts filing overdue by three months
https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2378#issuecomment-766714945
35 comments
Man, ignore that guys ridiculous comment. If you fix that, he'll just find something else to whine about. It's like all the people bemoaning desktop Linux, when things like KDE have been providing (in my opinion) the best overall desktop experience for more than a decade.
I chose Matrix/Riot years ago over the other options for two reasons: 1) I could host my own if I wanted, and 2) It didn't require any identifying information like telephones.
Element's already great.
I chose Matrix/Riot years ago over the other options for two reasons: 1) I could host my own if I wanted, and 2) It didn't require any identifying information like telephones.
Element's already great.
I've updated the Github issue with the last update from our accountants on this, after we already chased them in November: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2378#issueco...
You're under a bright enough limelight as of late, and especially right now, that the administrative overcharge of a reputable accounting firm such as any of the Big 4 may be worth the returns in the form of improved accountability - heh - and donations.
It'd be nice if you could commit to this. If your accountants are lagging by almost 3 months without filing an extension, you owe it to your donors. Blaming the accountants is fine, but in the end, you picked them, and you chose to stay with them.
(The value in the overcharge is really just that you've got a big bullseye you can throw darts at when accountability is required. This doesn't resonate with most entrepreneurs e.g. here on HN - as the greyed out comment alludes :) - but it does with more established firms largely for this reason.)
It'd be nice if you could commit to this. If your accountants are lagging by almost 3 months without filing an extension, you owe it to your donors. Blaming the accountants is fine, but in the end, you picked them, and you chose to stay with them.
(The value in the overcharge is really just that you've got a big bullseye you can throw darts at when accountability is required. This doesn't resonate with most entrepreneurs e.g. here on HN - as the greyed out comment alludes :) - but it does with more established firms largely for this reason.)
I wouldn't go anywhere near the Big 4 to be honest, this whole thread is a non-issue and if anything just points to problems inside Companies House
So our accountants might not be Big 4, but they're in the top 30 in the UK and considered reputable. I'm pretty sure that the overcharge of a Big 4 would swallow up donations much more than a screwup like this. That said, we obviously don't want a repeat performance of this, and will be figuring out what to do to avoid it.
It might be worth the quick math.
As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof.
A related question: Considering how far back this goes, what's stopping you from naming them? Is resolution in progress, or have they just been dead silent?
As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof.
A related question: Considering how far back this goes, what's stopping you from naming them? Is resolution in progress, or have they just been dead silent?
They haven't been dead silent; last update was on Dec 15th saying they had been syncing with Companies House and the submission was in hand. I don't particularly want to name them though given I genuinely don't know at this point whether the bug is with Companies House or the accountants, and given the drama this has raised, I have no desire for a lynch mob to descend on them if they haven't done anything wrong.
That's fair. So long as they're still working with you through it (and if they goofed, are working to resolve it), it's fine. I was concerned for a moment they'd ghosted.
> what's stopping you from naming them?
And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.
And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.
> And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.
Knowing who's reliable is everything.
The extended thread above yours adds extra light:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101
Knowing who's reliable is everything.
The extended thread above yours adds extra light:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101
Maybe there's something I'm missing but why are these accounts still not filed electronically? My accountant can do it just fine.
Unless there's a specific reason why these accounts should be done on paper, the more reasonable and cost-effective solution would be to switch to an accountancy practice that isn't stuck in the past and there are plenty of those beyond the "big 4".
Unless there's a specific reason why these accounts should be done on paper, the more reasonable and cost-effective solution would be to switch to an accountancy practice that isn't stuck in the past and there are plenty of those beyond the "big 4".
Our accountants say:
> It is due to the fact the organisation is a community interest company. CIC’s have to complete a CIC34 form, these forms have to be filed alongside the accounts which has to be done via postal methods with a cheque for payment. There is no online method at the moment to file CIC34 forms.
> Companies house, are from what I’ve heard, very particular about the CIC34 forms.
> It is due to the fact the organisation is a community interest company. CIC’s have to complete a CIC34 form, these forms have to be filed alongside the accounts which has to be done via postal methods with a cheque for payment. There is no online method at the moment to file CIC34 forms.
> Companies house, are from what I’ve heard, very particular about the CIC34 forms.
[deleted]
I am one of the other Guardians (aka Members of the Board of Directors) of the Matrix Foundation and I can confirm that we submitted the paperwork on time in October 2020. I remember because I had to go to some extra lengths for the process as a non-UK citizen.
I'm not surprised that Companies House is lagging behind right now. Basically everything is broken because of Covid, I can't imagine non-profit paperwork is at the top of the priority list. I will also say, as someone who has worked most of my professional life in non-profits, government paperwork is the bane of everyone's existence and having some sort of screw up (whether it is your fault or not) is practically a rite of passage.
As Arathorn mentioned in a sibling, we're chasing down our accountants to see if we can get this sorted out, but this isn't a sign of any larger trouble than a paperwork mixup.
I'm not surprised that Companies House is lagging behind right now. Basically everything is broken because of Covid, I can't imagine non-profit paperwork is at the top of the priority list. I will also say, as someone who has worked most of my professional life in non-profits, government paperwork is the bane of everyone's existence and having some sort of screw up (whether it is your fault or not) is practically a rite of passage.
As Arathorn mentioned in a sibling, we're chasing down our accountants to see if we can get this sorted out, but this isn't a sign of any larger trouble than a paperwork mixup.
It's possible that these are not overdue: there is (at least) a three month coronavirus extension available
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/companies-to-receive-3-mo...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/companies-to-receive-3-mo...
Normally, when the deadline is extended, this is correctly reported on the Companies House website.
One has to apply for deadline extension before the deadline. Between 25 March 2020 and 25 June 2020, every application that mentions COVID-19 as a reason was accepted. Additionally, all companies with accounts due date between 26 March 2020 and 29 September 2020 automatically got an extension under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.
There are also all kinds of temporary changes to deadlines, the one that applies here is 1.4 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-companies-etc... under which is exactly the 29 October 2020 listed on Companies House website.
One has to apply for deadline extension before the deadline. Between 25 March 2020 and 25 June 2020, every application that mentions COVID-19 as a reason was accepted. Additionally, all companies with accounts due date between 26 March 2020 and 29 September 2020 automatically got an extension under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.
There are also all kinds of temporary changes to deadlines, the one that applies here is 1.4 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-companies-etc... under which is exactly the 29 October 2020 listed on Companies House website.
This is the sort of thing that happens to most non-profits early in their lifetime. Procedures need to be set up and people need to understand what they need to do.
What bothers me most is that Matthew mentioned in that issue that they did the accounts on Oct 29 (perfectly in time for the deadline) and that they plan to publish them. Yet apparently they did neither file them officially nor publish them by now...
Sometimes things slip in organisations.
The bigger issue is that Matrix is not world leading.
Let Matthew decide priority on how to achieve that. Dealing with this post would be a distraction.
The bigger issue is that Matrix is not world leading.
Let Matthew decide priority on how to achieve that. Dealing with this post would be a distraction.
No shade here, just curious. You(?) created this issue for the 2019 financials and are circling back around for 2020. Is this something you do for other orgs/projects or is there something about matrix.org where you feel it is particularly important?
As a donor I feel that organizations should provide some details how donations are used. I'm requesting the same from other organizations I'm donating to if those organizations are more than just three persons working on a free software project in their spare time.
Originally donations to matrix.org foundation were supposed to be used to fund matrix protocol work and to hire a developer. This is still listed as a goal (that was reached) on Patreon. Only due to asking I found out that this never happened and donations are used to pay matrix.org homeserver instead, which of course is also a good cause, but should be communicated transparently.
I don't mind the accounts specifically, I just think that making them public is the easiest way to fulfill the needs of transparency. Of course a summary on the website, a blog post with explanations, etc, would also be nice, but I understand those mean extra work and there might be more important things the prioritize.
Originally donations to matrix.org foundation were supposed to be used to fund matrix protocol work and to hire a developer. This is still listed as a goal (that was reached) on Patreon. Only due to asking I found out that this never happened and donations are used to pay matrix.org homeserver instead, which of course is also a good cause, but should be communicated transparently.
I don't mind the accounts specifically, I just think that making them public is the easiest way to fulfill the needs of transparency. Of course a summary on the website, a blog post with explanations, etc, would also be nice, but I understand those mean extra work and there might be more important things the prioritize.
Great answer thank you. Agree that transparency is important when accepting donations, I'm sure sometimes it's a pain to prioritize vs any fires that are going on at the time.
This is a nothing burger.
I am not going to jump to any conclusions until 'Arathorn posts here a 10-paragraph long comment explaining how this is expected and even good for Matrix.
The delay can result in a penalty of ~1000 USD, which probably would be paid with user donations as this is the main source of income for Matrix.org Foundation.
All charities will waste some of its donations. It's not ideal, but it's not unusual.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
I would possibly argue it is ideal, even. The other two obvious alternatives is that the charity pays someone to deal with paperwork (which we wouldn't call "waste," but means even less of donations go towards the mission), or disorganized people just don't start charities and find for-profit jobs.
If you want a vibrant charitable ecosystem, letting people be imperfect about how they run their charities is a good thing.
If you want a vibrant charitable ecosystem, letting people be imperfect about how they run their charities is a good thing.
> letting people be imperfect about how they run their charities is a good thing
I disagree - charities receive special protections and privileges from the public and in return they agree to make themselves accountable.
If they aren't making themselves be accountable then they aren't keeping their side of the agreement with the public and their protections and privileges should be revoke.
I disagree - charities receive special protections and privileges from the public and in return they agree to make themselves accountable.
If they aren't making themselves be accountable then they aren't keeping their side of the agreement with the public and their protections and privileges should be revoke.
The agreement with the public includes the agreement that a missed filing results in a fine, not in revocation of their protections and privileges.
But more generally - my claim is that if the public wants a deal with charities where they must be flawless, that's a bad deal for the public. Effective people will make mistakes sometimes, ranging from missing a filing deadline to hiring people who end up not good at their job to trying some charitable activity that ends up not working. If we hold them to a standard of perfection, the rational activity of the people behind the charity is to just do something else. Is that good for us?
Of course we want them to be accountable - I'm not arguing that they should be able to do whatever, and they should try to meet all these requirements, that's why we the public encoded the requirements in the first place. I'm arguing that there's a big difference between accountability and expecting perfection.
But more generally - my claim is that if the public wants a deal with charities where they must be flawless, that's a bad deal for the public. Effective people will make mistakes sometimes, ranging from missing a filing deadline to hiring people who end up not good at their job to trying some charitable activity that ends up not working. If we hold them to a standard of perfection, the rational activity of the people behind the charity is to just do something else. Is that good for us?
Of course we want them to be accountable - I'm not arguing that they should be able to do whatever, and they should try to meet all these requirements, that's why we the public encoded the requirements in the first place. I'm arguing that there's a big difference between accountability and expecting perfection.
Making themselves accountable != never missing a paperwork filing deadline.
I don't read it as GP arguing that never filing is OK because charity.
I don't read it as GP arguing that never filing is OK because charity.
Absolutely.
They will almost certainly have to pay someone eventually to do their accounts so this is genuine waste of scarce resources.
Plus if a charity can't do things that it is legally required to do then that's not a great sign.
They will almost certainly have to pay someone eventually to do their accounts so this is genuine waste of scarce resources.
Plus if a charity can't do things that it is legally required to do then that's not a great sign.
Are donations bringing in more money than Matrix's contract with gov. agencies and other clients ?
Contracts with govs involve the for-profit New Vector Ltd. / Element and not the not-for-profit Matrix.org Foundation.
Ah, thanks.
Sorry for the drama, but this is not reason for panic.
(Separately we need to publish a summary of the accounts for https://matrix.org/foundation, which we are indeed running late on: it's been hard to prioritise it when we're on fire trying to improve Matrix's mass-market usability, given stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25812536).