[kwlug-disc] Company sponsorship + structure
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Mon Dec 21 14:56:09 EST 2009
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
> 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
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
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.
More information about the kwlug-disc