Andrew Gray wrote:
Legal issues aside, having the Foundation in any way required (or strongly expected) to step in - by having such a dedicated fund or by any other means - leaves us open to the potential for some very unfortunate overreaction. It also leaves us open to the potential for being gamed, or for being placed in a no-win situation [...]
Excellent point. And interestingly, it pushes in the opposite direction of Phil's concern. With too little up-front specification, it's prone to going off the rails. Too much, and it invites gaming.
And Lord help the day we get people whining "We collected all this money, we ought to use it, and ---- still hasn't shut up..."
There could be a solution to this, though. One person wrote to me off-list, saying:
When in doubt, use the funds in a non-vengeful manner - i.e. help the victim without hurting the person who hurt the victim. Harassment can be a two-way street, so perhaps hiring a professional dispute resolution person would be helpful in some circumstances.
Even restricting ourselves to the non-vengeful options -- among which I include restraining orders -- would send a number of the positive signals I was hoping for.
Send the money when someone *has* the problem and takes action; I think you'll get a good and tangible response to a specific call, and you'll avoid having to have a fuss over whether or not the money "ought to be released for this case", etc.
But actually having an account with the money sitting in it? I think that's more of a liability than a benefit, all things considered.
Interesting point. Do you think just collecting pledges would be a worthwhile compromise, assuming it's done in such a way that people can base their actual donation decision on the details of the case?
William