I'll chime in and agree that getting the funding distributed among more people would be better than how we currently have things. Opening up the doors to more folks who want to support the domain would be great, and making the donations smaller across more people would be awesome.
Tony, I like your idea of ensuring there is enough time for people to know when they can donate so that people have plenty of time to prepare to hit the "send" button. ;) Thanks again Alex for keeping us on task! S __ Office Nomads officenomads.com 206-484-5859 On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tony Bacigalupo <[email protected]>wrote: > To that end, and in the hopes of stirring up better suggestions, here's my > latest idea for Alex to consider and for everyone to discuss: > > *$100 from 100 people* > - Individuals donate $100 apiece > - Total budget of $10k > - Anything Alex thinks could use the collective decisionmaking power of > this group can put things to vote, and decisions can be made by majority. > - Once budget is met, original money is refunded to original donors. > - There will be a specified start time for accepting donations, noted in > advance so people have sufficient notice that this is going to happen. > - We'd put word out on this group, to the people actually participating in > this discussion, first-- so that the people who care and are passionate > about this get first dibs. > > Yes, some people will be left out, no it's not a perfect model, no it won't > be a perfect representation of everyone's interests and opinions. But it > will be a starting point from which actual decisions can be made as to how > better act in the interests of the entire movement moving forward. > > Tony > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Tony Bacigalupo <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Quick reminder: This group is not a decisionmaking body, so anything you >> propose here cannot be decided upon. >> >> This discussion, while fascinating and educational, has no way of ending >> conclusively on its own. There is no final vote, only debate. >> >> The only way I see any actual action happening as a result of this >> conversation is as follows: >> >> 1. We do what Alex has asked, and offer ideas on how the domain money >> should be re-raised so as to be more fair to all. >> 2. The people who participate in that fundraising will agree to terms >> which may or may not give them some say over what happens moving forward. >> 3. Progress is made by that collective group, headed up by Alex. Since it >> will be a finite group of people with a specific, defined relationship, they >> will be capable of making decisions as to how or whether to proceed with >> forming an entity or doing anything else. >> >> Anything that happens outside of that process is separate and must be >> dealt with as its own thing, and must not rely on convincing this entire >> group to collectively agree to it. Because anything that relies on that will >> fail to move forward. >> >> Tony >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> New Work City - Work with, not for. >> Web: http://nwcny.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/nwc >> Email: [email protected] >> Phone: (888) 823-3494 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jacob Sayles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I propose we set a period of time, perhaps a week, perhaps all of March, >>> and people chime in with how much they can contribute. At the end of that >>> time period, whatever the lowest bid that meets the final cost is, becomes >>> the set price, and the original bids are reduced to match this. If there >>> are folks that wanted to contribute, but their amount was below the final >>> unit price, they can be given an opportunity to up their bid and everything >>> would be adjusted. >>> >>> Jacob >>> >>> --- >>> Office Nomads - Individuality without Isolation >>> http://www.officenomads.com - (206) 323-6500 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Alex Hillman < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> For the record: I've processed the donated funds and distributed them to >>>> the sellers. There's a small amount of leftover, after transaction fees, >>>> DNS, etc, that will either be returned to the donors or redistributed to a >>>> hosting-related cause once I can determine the actual amount. >>>> >>>> I still, *over a week later*, have not heard any suggestions on the >>>> ONLY thing I asked for communal advice on after the the transaction >>>> processed, and that is how we could better redistribute the fund-raising >>>> effort so that it focused on the people in this community instead of the >>>> businesses. I was taking cues from SpreadFirefox, but don't want to >>>> directly >>>> rip on that campaign. >>>> >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> /ah >>>> indyhall.org >>>> coworking in philadelphia >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:36 AM, MaxBuck <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry I'm not staying current on who holds the donated funds, etc., as >>>>> I was too late to the party to donate. But what's wrong with whoever >>>>> owns the domain coworking.com to simply abide by whatever rules he/she >>>>> would prefer? Decision-making by a "starfish" doesn't seem very >>>>> efficient to me. >>>>> >>>>> My interest is in having as many ways as possible to collaborate with >>>>> other folks who are interested in coworking. I'm grateful to whoever >>>>> makes that happen, and when feasible I'll support financially. >>>>> Frankly, I couldn't care less whether that "whoever" becomes rich as >>>>> Croesus in the process. If they do, good for them. >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 12:30 am, Jerome Chang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > Hi. >>>>> > >>>>> > I support the decision to have a US legal entity as Alex, the current >>>>> >>>>> > domain gatekeeper, is in the US. Perhaps that could be the precedent >>>>> >>>>> > - whoever or whichever committee is overseeing these operational >>>>> > roles, that's where we transfer that "liability" or "legal >>>>> > responsibility"? Or is that just too difficult? >>>>> > >>>>> > Jerome >>>>> > ______________ >>>>> > BLANKSPACES >>>>> > "work wide open" >>>>> > >>>>> > www.blankspaces.com >>>>> > 5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea) >>>>> > Los Angeles, CA 90036 >>>>> > 323.330.9505 (office) >>>>> > >>>>> > On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Steven Heath wrote: >>>>> > >>>http://www.nzlii.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > >> That points to *laws* and *case law* not *lawsuits* :-) >>>>> > >>>>> > > Sigh. http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2010/ ;-) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> P.S. Methinks you've got a bit of angst regarding the USA? Just >>>>> >>>>> > >>> be aware >>>>> > >>> that the USA is filled with people just like NZ, and not all of >>>>> us >>>>> > >>> prescribe >>>>> > >>> to the Fox News "USA can do no wrong" mentality. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> No, NZ is not a overly litigious country and case law would not >>>>> > >> support the hypothetical situation you proposed. >>>>> > >>>>> > > Maybe not, but you said my story was an example of why not to form >>>>> >>>>> > > an entity when the reverse is true. Currently in the USA (as Alex >>>>> >>>>> > > is in the USA) it could happen to an individual if the individual >>>>> > > continues owning the domain. IF we create a US-based entity (US as >>>>> >>>>> > > a counter example for your assertion against US-based entities) and >>>>> >>>>> > > we give it proper insurance such an outcome would be highly >>>>> unlikely. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> desc "Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides >>>>> comprehensive, >>>>> > >> no-fault personal injury cover for all New Zealand residents and >>>>> > >> visitors to New Zealand."www.acc.co.nz >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Workers, employers and the government pay into it and means that >>>>> you >>>>> > >> CAN NOT sue for injury occurred, be it at work, on rugby fielded >>>>> or a >>>>> > >> car crash. >>>>> > >>>>> > > We in the USA have the same, it's called "Workers Comp." >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Read that again, it is illegal to sue for damages a driver of a >>>>> car >>>>> > >> that hits you. If they broke the law they will be charged and go >>>>> > >> through the the courts and insurance (assuming carried) will cover >>>>> > >> damage to car and ACC will cover your hospital bills and rehab >>>>> costs. >>>>> > >> Or in turn you have work place accident and employer has unsafe >>>>> > >> machinery then they will be charged etc... >>>>> > >>>>> > >> I know this is off topic but it shows how 'different' America is >>>>> with >>>>> > >> regard to legal approach. The sad thing is of course is most >>>>> > >> Americans >>>>> > >> do not know any other way so think everyone operates like them. >>>>> > >>>>> > > Don't get me wrong, I hate the US' legal system and prefer others >>>>> > > that are less monopolized by entrenched legal interests. But Alex >>>>> >>>>> > > doing nothing while being subject to US laws doesn't help. >>>>> > >>>>> > > I'm not arguing (necessarily) for a US-based entity (nor am I >>>>> > > arguing against), I'm arguing against doing nothing, especially >>>>> > > while the holder of the domain is a US citizen. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> And to shake things up even further is I do not even have >>>>> > >> health/medical insurance.... amazing eh? >>>>> > >>>>> > > Then we *definitely* don't want you to hold the domain... ;-p >>>>> > >>>>> > > Whatever the case, I think this pro-vs-con on the US entity is a >>>>> bit >>>>> > > overblown for our purposes. Hell, let's put it in neutral >>>>> > > territory: Switzerland (if we could just afford all the fees it >>>>> > > would cost!) >>>>> > >>>>> > > -Mike Schinkel >>>>> > > Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking >>>>> > >http://ignitionalley.com >>>>> > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> >>>>> > > Groups "Coworking" group. >>>>> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> >>>>> > > . >>>>> > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// >>>>> groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en >>>>> > > . >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Coworking" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Coworking" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Coworking" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. >>> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Coworking" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
