From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Oct 23 01:35:32 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centrmmtao03.cox.net ([70.168.83.81]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GbvHK-0005wU-1n for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:35:30 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by centrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061023083526.ZFTQ3784.centrmmtao03.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:35:26 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id dkay1V00C3y5FKc0000000 Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:35:00 -0400 Message-ID: <453C7EC8.5010805@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:35:20 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Unfair References: <1161567170.453c1bc274863@webmail.pdx.edu> <20061023014300.GC20034@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20061023014705.GD20034@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20061023014705.GD20034@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 187 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I bcc-d this so other board members could second-guess my > response/politeness. No second guessing. You are more polite than I would have managed. But I will offer some comments anyway, since they are better said here than on the open list because I shouldn't be the one to speak for the organization on this. >>>I will continue to donate. I will also continue to advertise >>>this--in order to get others to donate! >> >>I appreciate that. I'd also appreciate you doing so in a less >>offensive/confrontational manner. If he really wanted to get others to donate, he should make a private donation to LLG, and NOT advertise it himself. 1) to the extent that he offends others, his advertising will likely discourage people from doing so. 2) the way people typically donate money seeking to get others to do so, is to ask the receiving organization to announce a challenge grant - and the for you or the President of LLG to announce that Ryan Keppel has donated X amount for Y purpose and is challenging the rest of the community to match his donation with X or whatever in order to achieve the goal. The point being that it should be US doing the fundraising and not him. (That we can also put in the little 501(c)(3) tax-exempt notice is a bonus for this. BTW, just as a reminder, Robin - if he or someone else makes a donation at one time exceeding some amount like $50 or $75 at one time, or some larger amount over multiple donations in a year, we are legally required to send him a formal receipt for IRS purposes even if he does not ask for it). If he does NOT have a specific goal that his donation is aimed at (there was a mention of supporting better server capacity, but I don't know that he explicitly has made his donation for that purpose), then it is up to LLG and especially the Board to decide how much money we are seeking for that purpose, and how to go about getting it. Even if he does have a specific goal, it still remains for the ***LLG board*** to decide that we will be spending money on that goal and how much, and not the donor. Thus he is simply wrong to be promoting donations for a purpose that LLG has not decided to spend funds for, since we might decide that we don't want to spend money on it (in which case we are obliged to offer to return the donation, and things are even more complicated if several people have contributed donations for a cause we decide not to support). When it comes to handling money, it is then most important that we handle things in a businesslike manner; our legal status depends on it, and we as directors are potentially liable if it is not done properly. That is when LLG cannot be the free-for-all individual initiative thing that it tends to be in other arenas. I know that Robin knows this, but it needs to be said to Ryan and the community when they seem to forget this. ------ In handling this, Robin can of course continue to do so - as secretary he handles communications both formal and informal. Or it might be a matter worthy for the President of LLG to speak formally for the organization, and the fact that it is not-Robin may lend a more official aura to such a post. lojbab