Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
On Monday 21 February 2005 2:26 pm, John Goerzen wrote:
> In a nutshell:
> 1. A regular treasurer's budget has been established
> 2. The treasurer has adopted a more informative reporting system
> 3. An assistant treasurer (Branden) has been selected
> 4. Banking is now done in a more convenient way for geographically
> disparate people
There is improvement. The reports are vastly more informative than the
complete lack of information we had seen previously. However, there is still
no line-item information on how SPI is receiving and spending project monies,
just high-level summaries. I am also concerned about the security and
organization of the filing system and how paperwork is being disposed of.
If we could get the invoicing cycle down from 180 days to 30 or something then
we would be getting somewhere. I'm also curious to see whether reports
continue since the January '05 report is the first and only one ever
delivered. But hey! I'm behind you guys 100%!
> Obviously the work is incomplete. But progress is being made, despite
> your efforts to ignore it. Jimmy or Branden can probably speak more to
> this. If you want to engage in a discussion about this, I submit that
> spi-general is a more appropriate forum than debian-vote. Of course,
> this is not the only business that SPI must attend to, and we've had
> other things to deal with also.
> > get paid for six months and why SPI's officers badmouth my company when
> > we
> It would have helped if:
> a) you had sent the invoice to the SPI treasurer
> b) you hadn't sent it in the middle of a box of papers that otherwise
> needed only to be stored
> c) you hadn't made contradictory remarks about whether or not you
> desired payment at all
> Branden is not an SPI officer. Jimmy is the SPI treasurer. Branden is
> a member of the board only.
Well, since Branden sent the board a picture of my invoice sitting on top of
the sorted papers I assumed you were aware of it. Of course, maybe that
wasn't "procedural" enough for you guys to take any action on it.
> Actually, "this year" would be inaccurate. "last year" would even be
> inaccurate. This would have to be 2003 and before, right? Maybe a very
> small part of the beginning of 2004?
Last DPL duty cycle then.
Ean Schuessler, CTO
214-720-0700 x 315