-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2008.08.13 01:31, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:43:34 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 07:55 -0500,
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Another option, that might be fit our role more is some direct or
> > > banking. ING.com is one of the biggest ones. Capital One is
> another one
> > > but I don't care for them as a company .. personal preference.
> > > would get by the problem of having to be close by.
> > Looks like Capital One is a winner. We only have to provide them
> > whom ever we want on file as authorized signers. We do not have to
> > on file all officers. No one has to go to NM, or anything physical.
> > Because they offer direct bank accounts, accessed purely online.
> Now, that is great news. Thanks for all the effort you've put in on
> > --
> > William L. Thomson Jr.
> > amd64/Java/Trustees
> > Gentoo Foundation
> Thanks again,
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <email@example.com>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
I'm quite keen not to be a signatory since I'm not in the US.
Capital One (in the UK) already have my personal data as until
recently, I had an account with them.
Point to ponder ...
Should only trustees be signatories or should we permit officers to
operate the account too?
Trustees serve as officers today but that may not always be the case.
Indeed, it may be desireable to split the roles.
Thanks for all the legwork.
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----