[kwlug-disc] Company sponsorship + structure

[unsolicited]

Khalid Baheyeldin wrote, On 12/21/2009 9:46 AM:
> Here is another crazy idea: can we get companies to pitch in for getting us
> a rented place? Individuals can pitch in if they want to, but are not under
> any obligation to do so.
> 
> The pluses: we have some cash dedicated to renting a meeting place, and
> don't have to beg for a place or change our group to accommodate these
> pleaces.
> 
> The minuses: some can see this as influence peddling by companies?

And we're back to icky money.

Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean a structure, 
accountability, and a level of defined commitment by a number of 
people to a number of roles.

To John's point, incorporation, and other really icky things, could 
only be avoided by handing $$$ to an individual. Trust and 
accountability issues result. Multiple signatories, bank accounts, and 
administrative issues spring into being. Deciding who will volunteer 
for those many roles, accepting them, executing duties, and monitoring 
same, require an infrastructure to be created that we do not currently 
have.

Even if, to Glen's point, we donate directly to a location, someone 
has to track who's done what, to when, for what, and acquire the next 
bit for when the current <whatever> runs out. Again, it implies a 
level of infrastructure we do not have. Witness the current 
manifestations of needing a new meeting space. Again, not a bad thing 
in and of itself, but probably mirrors future issues.

To date, the group has been so anti-infrastructure, and who can blame 
them, that many debates or ideas are simply non-starters.

If the group wants to create an infrastructure, that's no bad thing in 
and of itself. But it does imply some sort of voting process, and the 
rules surrounding same, including documentation. It implies at the 
least, a President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Secretary. And 
members assigned to those roles, who commit themselves to fulfilling 
those roles for some period of time. And a mechanism for continuous 
role execution (defined terms of service, and replacement through voting.)

To Bob's point - it would require kwlug to define itself. What it 
wants to be when it grows up. Again, no bad thing, but it would be a 
lot of work. And is something that kwlug has gone to some lengths to 
avoid getting into. Even if it would provide a central point of 
reference that is visible, and therefore can be pointed at and 
discussed. vs. He said, she said, "my kwlug means ..."

Also to Bob's point, such definition would require kwlug to sort out 
how it wants to balance 'commercial enterprise' against 'community', 
to attempt to put some sort of label upon such aspects.

In essence, kwlug is on a cusp - if it chooses, it can be at a 
crossroad, and choose to pick a path.

Or it can choose to not enter the crossroad, and not pick a path. To 
turn around and walk the other way.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, it is, in and of itself, a 
choice. But I do think it means that meeting space must be free.

I think kwlug will always choose this path. Certainly, I will seek it, 
as a minimum.

That is not to say that another group does not spin out, to exist 
simultaneously, but it will not be kwlug. And that's not necessarily a 
bad thing, it just means a documented position, committed volunteers, 
and a defined perspective on commercialization vs. community.

	And it could do things we wouldn't mind seeing happen, but is 
currently difficult to accomplish. Like pay a rental fee or buy an 
audio system.

Symbiosis. Each can feed each the other. Everyone can be part of both. 
But I sense distinct perspectives, and the current perspective is 
strongly held. It ain't going anywhere. Even if it takes a while to 
find free space acceptable to all.