[sudo-discuss] new proposal - need input

[robb]

it's moot for now
another proposal has been introduced that will delay this matter for three
months

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:11 AM <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:

> 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/a61b258a/attachment.html>