> <mailto:
jamesmhare@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the
> > resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a
> > PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the
> > PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money.
> Conversely,
> > if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the
> > Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question
> "but how
> > much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the
> > Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being
> > explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So
> > while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying
> > to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By
> > debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our
> > in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun
> > than debating back-office matters.
>
> I do agree that it's good to make the details transparent, but I too
> think that this is more specific than you generally want for a
> resolution.
>
> Playing "what if": the Post Office has a budget crisis, and before you
> go to actually get the box, prices are raised to $100 annually! The
> Friendship Heights post office moves next door and gets a new address!
> The "small" boxes are being taken out for wall repairs, but they'll
> rent you a medium for the same price! You, being diligent in your
> duties, are on your way to rent the box--or renew it next year--when
> you discover one of these things, and now you are deeply concerned,
> because even though these are trivial matters, they're in conflict and
> require the resolution to be amended.
>
> What I might do is resolve to rent the box and spend no more than,
> say, $110, without revisiting the resolution, and in the resolution
> refer to another document that contains the juicy^W less-important
> details: that the address of the box must be kept publicly on the
> website and in the org's records, what specific size and box number
> you actually got, etc. (You might also want to clarify whether "for a
> yearlong period" means "for this year only" or "indefinitely, for a
> year at a time, as long as the other conditions apply".)
>
>
> I support this and allowing a little bit of flexibility, such as "a Post
> Office in the District of Columbia, spending no more than $110".
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kat
>
>
> --
> Your donations keep Wikipedia online:
http://donate.wikimedia.org/en