Hi Urias,I am moving this discussion out of the "Reducing paper waste at conferences" thread because it is getting totally off topic.
Urias McCullough wrote:
Actually, it's funny you put it that way. I really don't want to squabble over the technicalities, but since Haiku, Inc. doesn't actually have bylaws stating that anyone beyond the BOD has the power to make these decisions, then the powers were always granted to Haiku, Inc. by default from day one. In that same vein, if the community truly believed that Haiku, Inc. was an evil organization, seeking to use the donations for the wrong purposes, then they certainly could stop donating. I believe there are also some intentions to work on the bylaws and give more power to others within the community (there have already been a couple failed attempts in the past to draft something up). I personally believe that Haiku, Inc. does strive to make decisions that ultimately benefit the project as a whole, and holds many of the same opinions as most of the project contributors. I strongly believe that community discussion, voting, and decision making can greatly influence decisions made by Haiku, Inc., and to that end, public discussion, voting, etc. are definitely worthwhile - but not necessarily the final say. If, on the other hand, the community and project contributors demonstrate a lack of trust in Haiku, Inc's decision making abilities, then I'm certain we'll continue to hear about it until eventually something must change.
It is not about lack of trust or thinking that Haiku Inc. is evil. It is about being consistent, as in, doing what you preach, and showing true transparency as a means to maximize your funding efforts.
First, you can't claim to be open and transparent if you attribute yourself discretionary powers and decide things behind closed doors. It is a contradiction in terms.
You guys keep changing your tune at every turn. Some of you sometimes say that Haiku Inc. has no authority whatsoever or that all decisions are to be made in the open, and then somebody else will come up next claiming to have authority or decision making powers over something; sometimes this is as subtle -- but nevertheless overbearing -- as telling someone on IRC "don't do that because Haiku Inc. has decided xxx" and sometimes it can be more specific as in this particular case where Haiku Inc. now claims to have the discretionary authority to decide how the donated funds are used. Because of this persistent gray area, Haiku Inc. is constantly sending mixed messages which confuse people also make the organization prone to misuse and abuse of authority (as you know it has happened in the past).
Cheers, Koki/aka Koki
