reject +1

On 2019-02-07 7:04 pm, robb wrote:

duly noted

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jake <jake@spaz.org> wrote:

I want to clarify that, to the extent my membership of sudoroom gives me a say
in this decision, that I think that the proposal should be rejected for any
number of pretty obvious reasons.  If the people of Sudoroom want to have a
longer dialogue about this and address the concerns that I have (as do others
i'm sure) then we should schedule that, otherwise I ask that our delegates go
to the meeting with a rejection of the proposal from sudoroom.

am I missing something?

thank you,
-jake

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Jenny Ryan wrote:

> To clarify, as these "miscommunications" continue to circulate:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:16 PM Yardena Cohen <yardenack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They're not asking for "free rent forever" - I don't even know where
>> people are getting that idea. Please read the proposal again - they're
>> offering to continue paying as much as they're able, up to 50% of
>> their budget, with the understanding that this would settle any
>> outstanding debts.
>>
>
> Of course that's what they're asking for - there's no end date on this
> proposal. But more to the point, a percentage doesn't work as we have no
> way of knowing or tracking how much that is, as they are not fiscally
> sponsored by Omni. Or you're asking more hours of the Treasurer (ahem) to
> track down financial reporting from their fiscal sponsor. I'm not
> interested in taking on more Omni Finance labor right now.
>
>
>> Robb, are you talking about the "Out of the Blue" event which is
>> specifically mentioned in the email you forwarded, which they say was
>> a miscommunication which they're willing to move on from?
>>
>
> I'm sure happy to move on from, given that it was a blatant attempt at
> embezzlement.
>
> If we're talking about good faith, the most important aspect IMO is
>> the ASSUMPTION of good faith. That means when someone tells you what
>> they can afford, don't accuse them of lying based on snap judgements
>> about their clothes, or of secretly hiding donations because they're
>> fiscally sponsored by someone else, or of embezzling money just
>> because someone else "completed the contract" for an event, or of
>> "holding back-rent as a carrot gift" when they're clearly just trying
>> to settle their debts in whatever way possible.
>>
>
> It was not "completing the contract" - it was outright editing the contract
> after it was signed and the invoice paid, to say "$1000 goes to GCEA back
> rent" after it had been entirely negotiated, written up, and signed by Joe
> and the event renter (who never mentioned any ties to GCEA).
>
> There has not been any attempt to settle debts, and there won't be that I
> can foresee. That's the carrot. It's a gimme to the delegates to make this
> sound like a reasonable proposal.
>
> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss