[sudo-discuss] new proposal - need input

[robb]

duly noted

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jake <jake at 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 at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
> >> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20190207/c5347e0d/attachment.html>