I struggle to imagine what an exchequer with no ability to use the accounts of sudo room or no responsibility for or involvement in gathering and disbursing money would do or what significance such a vaguely-defined role would have. My experience as exchequer for much of the past year is admittedly an unfortunate bias, and I don't want the future to resemble the past simply for lack of imagination. My understanding would benefit from a concrete example of what an alternative might look like and how the language as proposed would foreclose the hypothetical alternative. On Mar 7, 2013 9:42 AM, "mattsenate(a)gmail.com" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with the sentiment, and in lieu of suggesting an alternative at > first, decided to ask for more thoughts, so thanks. > > However, even if it is a process we do now, I disagree that (a) it is > absolutely necessary for the exchequer specifically to do this rather than > to support the overall process and encourage better systems to automate and > (b) it need not be codified in the description of the role, but instead as > documentation, best practices, recommendations, etc such as on a wiki page. > Further, I would suggest if we did want to keep it in, that we think long > and hard, but add it to the fiscal solvency process, for which we are > collectively responsible, and the exchequer may be the first or default > person to implement or act. > > Do you think it reasonable to make a new wiki page instead for exchequer > operational insight? > > // Matt > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> > To: "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org> > Subject: [sudo-discuss] Constable amendment changes > Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 9:04 AM > > > In the second case, I added this because handling the money and being > authorized to use the accounts was key to my being exchequer, and will > remain so, and even if aspects of the processes of handling money are > delegated, distributed, automated, (it happened with wepay a bit,) these > basics remain necessary as a default. > On Mar 7, 2013 2:49 AM, "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > hey all, > > > > here are the changes I described in the mtg tonight: > > > http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association%2FCon… > > > > This page's history has: > > (a) the current Articles > > (b) the proposal from tonight > > (c) my proposed changes > > > > // Matt > > > > p.s. > > > > I left out some bits about Facilitator and Exchequer, but the rest is > > mainly re-worded, reduced, and refined. The omitted pieces (due to > > unnecessary in the first case since majority vote already over-rules > > facilitator, and too specific for the second case): > > > > Facilitator: > > > > ** Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of > > Association about how business is handled in meetings, but may be > > challenged in this by anyone who does not consent, which results in a > > majority vote on sustaining or overturning the Facilitator's judgment. > > > > Exchequer: > > > > ** Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group, > > using the group's accounts. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sudo-discuss mailing list > > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >