On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:46:24AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd prefer the 10%.
Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there... my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the donation outside the terms of the FSA.
I'm not sure what to do here. They've provided an updated FSA and want to move forward with getting it signed, however it isn't honoring our request to leave out mention of the retroactive donation.
The amounts listed are what we voted for, so it's numerically correct, but not technically correct on the third point...
I know this Committee felt strongly about this point previously, so I don't want to just brush it off. Should I: a) bring it up with them, b) don't worry about it and just proceed, c) send back an amended copy of the FSA that drops that bit, d) something else...?
(I'm amending the copy anyway to tinker with some of the representation language, so am going to default to (c) if no one has better advice.)
Bryce
I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.
I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct about how they see things should be handled.
It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?
Ted
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board