At this point I would say C is my preference. Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
