8 Feb
2019
8 Feb
'19
10:11 a.m.
reject +1
On 2019-02-07 7:04 pm, robb wrote:
duly noted
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jake <jake(a)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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss To clarify, as these
"miscommunications" continue to circulate:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:16 PM Yardena Cohen <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss 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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss