| Author | Message | Page: 4 3 2 1 [all][bottom] |
| |||
I hate to say this, but I'm starting to see why Jim wanted nothing to do with Dollsteak. He's taken a great idea and made it seem like some sort of scam run by a group of con-men (and a con-woman)... | |||
I assumed the FRPPOL thing was a whole group of us, not just the four who decided to go ahead with the meeting. Those of us who were on the original emails may have believed that we were going to be included in that. Now that its been made clear that's not the case, those of us who were confused can get on with letting you guys do it. Although you may want to consider adjusting the GM status of this group to those who are actually involved, rather than the rest of us as well, seeing as you won't have anywhere more 'private' to discuss. I do think that whether or not it was your intention, you have created the impression of a clique. I'm not sure whether you want to address that, or leave it as it is. | |||
There is no reason why more people can't be added - and it was always intended that more peope would be added - the rules and regs make that very clear in the way they are written. | |||
Ya know ... more and more, this looks like a bad idea. Wanting to help has suddenly turned into more aggravation than it's worth. So - here's my idea/proposal, and feel free to call a meeting on it or whatever. Either everyone involved in this (and I don't give an (expletive deleted)WHO that includes, gets together and figures out whether woof & etc. want help and how we can do it, or we fold right now. I've got donations that I'd be happy to return to those who have made them, or forward to woof - whichever. Sorry, Ron. Sorry, Johnb. You want to go ahead with this, then I'll be happy to transfer the accounts over Jaime if he wants it, or anyone else you select. But it ain't worth it - not to me. Not like this. This message was last edited by the GM at 18:04, Sat 28 Sept 2002. | |||
BUT I don't see anyone else coming along volunteering to run it, nor coming up with any plans. All I see is Dollsteak upset cos things didn't go his way. However - if anyone wants to invent a democratic system - or any other system that Woof approves of - I will gladly hand what ever we have got over to you. However - if you decide you want Shan, Ron and me to do it - then I will carry on as we are - and expand the active group slowly, as we always intended. | |||
It can't be that unconstitutional, otherwise capitalism would be illegal in most countries. We four (now three) took the initiative on this, and I say we need to give it a chance. It's been less than a week, and it's too soon to make a big decision about whether we should carry on. Let's at least give it until the next meeting, and see how it goes. The only person so far who has a problem with it is Dollsteak, other people are happy to volunteer and send money WITHOUT questioning the set-up. We owe it to Woof, and to everybody else, to give this our best shot. | |||
I think the confusion arose from the difference in the original scope (ie the emails that were flying around a while back) and the final result. You guys have put the effort into it, drawn up the scope, now go with it. If you pull out the moment it starts looking hard well... we're all doomed, eh? ;) And my comment about the board is still pretty relevant - woof has set it up so that the people who were in the original email threads have the status, not the people who ended up forming the group. Its not the same thing. | |||
And for help... PLEASE! Indeed I do want help and appreciate all the efforts you are going to! You all have my full support until it's demonstrated I should think otherwise. As for the FoRPoL group, I guess I have a diffent view of things and there's four tiers; Financial members: Members who handle the donations - eg John, Shan, BBR. Members: Other FoRPoL members whos participation varies - eg me (I guess), Jhael, IronSite, elSpike (all the other GM's) Associate: I guess... people who help out in some way - KabinTheDwarf with his PbW to RPoL conversion FAQ (I guess?) Non-active member: All other pleb users - What was that about a clique group...? My view was that both members groups would see all the same stuff and have access to all the same messages etc, however the financial members would need to have more active rolls in the accounting side of things. Any of us other 'members' should be active or inactive on that side (including attending the meetings) as they desire. | |||
Why dont we work on codifying it a little more and set it as a formal structure for FoRPoL over all. We could change the name of the fund raising group to Forpol-(Donations) and make it an off shoot of the general FoRPoL structure. We could change the rules of FoRPoL(Donations) so that we can only add memebers of the Members group to the committee (although I still want to have final say resting with the committee at the time to protect their financial reputations/credit cards etc ....) Members can only be added BY Jase - as he controls who can GM the FoRPoL forum. That means that Jase has a say on who can become a member of the Donations group. Associate Members and Inactive Members are defined as in Jase's perviuos post. Although maybe when someone has been associate for a while we should consider making them a full member? Because we need to keep some new blood coming in and keeping us on our toes :) That would add an extra layer of accountability for the finance people, and would go some way to meeting DollSteaks interest in broader involvement - but still let the Donations group protect their own financial interests? | |||
John, you know that I couldn't care less about how it's set up. The only thing that matters to me is that my credit card information and bank information isn't given to someone that I have no idea about who they are. I do want someone to have access to the paypal account, and I would also like to give that person a signed check made out to Friends of RPOL to be used to transfer funds from the bank account that I opened (which thus far only has my $25.00 in it :P ) to another account in the event that I can't. I'm a somewhat cautious person, and I would really prefer that the info be given to someone I've known and talked to, even if just thru the internet. Dollsteak would have been the ideal choice, in my mind, and still would be. But ... *shrug* Woof, thanks for speaking up. I'm sorry about the reactions - dollsteak hurt my feelings quite a bit. | |||
| |||
Shan - don't worry about doll - no one likes being told when they've done something not quite right, and I think a lot of his fuss-making is just cause he took offense at JB asking him to consult. So for funds UK people can give to JB US people can give to Shan Aust people can send directly to woof is that how we're doing it? | |||
Shan deals with international credit card donations and cheques (checks) in US funds. I am setting up an account that can handle donations by cheque in UK funds. We haven't codified a formal way of collecting funds directly from the Australian contingent, although I expect those who know Jase can slip him a few dollars and a beer :P However, Jase was talking about the money going straight from the FoRPoL account directly to the supplier and by-passing him. So that might not be acceptable (to Jase) in the long term However, we might need to look at a more formal situation if there are people in Brisbane (for example) who want to contribute by cheque. The same applies for people in other currency areas as well. At the moment we can only take other currencies via Paypal, which needs to be backed by a credit card. | |||
The system we have ATM meets UK and US requirments - and will possibly have to be modified to meet banking requirements in other coutries, as we add them. Any of those changes also have to meet US and UK legal requirements, so that we are operating legally in all of the countries ... It is going to be a bit of a head-ache - but won't be insurmountable. | |||
Although the Inland Revenue doesn't know about the australian one yet. BTW - did you know that its bloody hard to be domiciled in the UK and I have to basically buy a cemetary plot and then go and die in it first? This is what I get for learning about taxation law. | |||
Unfortunately though I think doll may have had a good point or two to make, personal feelings do get in the way, and they're unavoidable as much as we may say or wish it to the contrare... after all we're humans talking (typing) to humans. Harping on the same old points doesn't help either, especially once they've been dismissed or resolved... There's no Australian paypal site unfortunately, so I'm not sure what we can do about Oz donations except zip them over to the US and back again. Sounds quite inconvenient Jhael... | |||
perhaps you set up an account under your name at an aussie bank and put the account number up - that way people can put money in that way? Im guessing that most people would be happy to do that. | |||
I suspect that's the big problem that John and Shan face. I'm considering letting you guys have my australian account, seeing as my annual income there is under $6k. But I'd need to think through the legality of that and it would mean relying on me. <gasp!> | |||
That would mean that we can amalgamate the funds in Aus - before paying the Aus supplier ... Australians can send cheques straight to the account and then we can top up with what we have in the central funds, hopefully reducing money handling costs on the way past. It seems to me that dollsteak has one real point to make about the financial sysem. - you can't trust the people running it. He has managed to think up every bad scenario he can - and tried to suggest those scenarios can only happen because the financial setup isn't democratic. Well that's Bull - it will happen under any system IF the people running it are bent. I am well aware of the risk in handling other people's money - both Shan and I are - and that's why we are building reporting systems that show money in and money out. People will be able to track every single donation. The tax issue is not a problem for me - the account isn't in my name - I just underwrite it. IE if it isn't operated properly - I am liable - so I need to ensure the sytem is run properly under UK law - and why I won't give control of the account to anyone i don't trust. So what are the good points Doll is making - I can't see them under the personal slurs that seem to keep appearing. | |||
To be honest, his experience with PBW seems to have soured him to the point that he can't see any other scenarios. Sad, but understandable. Accountability is an issue, both you and he are on the right track there. JB - I trust you with my money, my possessions and my life, so there's no drama there. I think the biggest problem that we may face is simple burnout. And it seems that there are enough people volunteering to fill any gaps that might arise. Yes I know he's going overboard with it, and I would be offended too if it was my name he was using, but I've already had that pleasure with him dragging me through the mud elsewhere. Put it down to youth and inexperience in debating. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Find the arguments, close the loopholes and we'll all be much happier. But I think he's going to need a short sharp slapdown if he keeps up with this personal shit. | |||
I think it was GreatHairy that is a banker in Perth. | |||
and it was Lou :) I have all her details :) | |||
| |||
|
| [top] |