[sudo-discuss] new proposal - need input

[hol at gaskill.com]

reject +1
On 2019-02-07 7:04 pm, robb wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190208/73ecc963/attachment.html>