| 1 |
On 04/06/18 13:43, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:26 AM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Historically, the foundations affairs have been organised so that a |
| 4 |
>> quorum at members meetings is never required, thus this is a non |
| 5 |
>> problem. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> It is never required as long as you just want to maintain the status quo... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> Further, I see very few signs of people who actually want to participate |
| 10 |
>> in the foundation coming forward. If these people existed, they could |
| 11 |
>> start today. The foundation needs the offices of Secretary and Treasurer |
| 12 |
>> filled. |
| 13 |
> ... and this would be the status quo. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Well, I guess that is a stretch. It is more normal for the offices to |
| 16 |
> be filled, and merely inactive. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But, hey, we might yet see the Foundation file a tax return sometime |
| 19 |
> in our lifetimes... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> (Not knocking the work Robin has done - it just seems to me that a |
| 22 |
> system that requires sporadic individual heroics to almost function is |
| 23 |
> fundamentally broken. I'm not convinced that anything other than a |
| 24 |
> complete re-design could fix this, perhaps going as far as not having |
| 25 |
> any legal entity at all.) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
Is something you feel strongly enough to change, or are you 'happy' with |
| 28 |
the status quo .. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
.. because if not, I see this mail as nothing but another layer of paint |
| 31 |
on the bike-shed .. |
Archives