[wlug_org] Drive Caddy sold (was Re: Hard-Drive for Caddy)

[Jamie Baddeley]

I think the point that Ewen raised doesn't necessarily get solved with
the creation of a bank account. Given Ewen's background in CS and Law,
I'd be keen to hear his views further on this.

Creation of a Bank Account assumes that we have gotten past the first
step, which is deciding what to do with the money. Except that we
haven't actually decided what to do with it. And putting it in the Bank
is not an answer, it's only deferring the inevitable, which is deciding
what_to_actually_do_with_it. Which is what we really need to decide.
Let's have a plan.

Don't misunderstand this as me saying a bank account is bad idea. It's
not. And Brent's solution seems like a good compromise between the
wishes of the LUG and the practicalities of trying to organise the
group.

But I think we need to have a set of options to consider about what to
do with the money. And depending on what we do, the whole
bank/money/liability thing may go away.

Investing in assets is not a bad idea, especially if they are useful,
and don't devalue.

As Tony has pointed out, there are a lot of complexities in some options
we are considering. Nothing of course, can not be solved - this is just
something we do need to have reasonably constructive debate on.

jamie


On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 17:36, Wood Brent wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 11:13, Ewen McNeill wrote:
> 
> > There is, however a risk once money starts floating around of wellylug
> > being seen (legally) as effectively a partnership doing business (which
> > means all members are equally liable).  So if we're going to build up a
> > war chest of money, etc then some more formality might be in order.
> 
> Shock horror, I thought this is the sort of suggestion that has been so
> negatively regarded in the past, in fact it is why our committee (or some of
> it) actively refuses to accept the label. (IMHO, however, if it quacks, ....)
> 
> 
> We seem to be running into situations where various members suggest formality
> as a solution. So far we have pretty muvch managed without, at least as far as
> rules setting up & constraining a committee are concerned.
> 
> As the membership has regularly demonstrated an aversion to formality, I
> suggest we look for informal solutions where possible.
> 
> A simple, semi formal way to deal with $$ in such a situation requires one or
> more trusted cabal members to open a bank account. It can be called Wellylug
> rainy day account or whatever, the name is not necessarily a legal tie to
> Wellylug or it's "members". The group trusts these to be responsible with their
> access to the $$ (much as if they were, for example, the treasurer & secretary
> on the committee of a club, just that there is no documemtation (rules) setting
> them up as legal representatives of the club, or the $$ as assets of the group)
> 
> The members can agree to trust these persons to hold & manage the $$ until
> approved expenditures are needed. How formal you wanna get about approval, etc,
> is up to the group. The well established desire for informality does make trust
> rather than rules the main governance of Wellylug. So far the membership,
> AFAIK, seems to be comfortable with trust. This may change when $$ get
> involved, I dunno....
> 
> 
> Brent
>