I would support your option (c). BTW, can you send around your modified version?
Tav On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 23:38 -0700, Bryce Harrington 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
