<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stephen Walsh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@nerdvana.org.au" target="_blank">steve@nerdvana.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
On 07/24/2012 01:30 PM, James Polley wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Compare this
with the paperwork to create the Parent Organisation Not<br>
Called Linux Australia, then moving Linux Australia under
PONCLA,<br>
shuffling bank accounts around to be owned by relevant orgs,
creating<br>
new ones, making sure the audit trail is clear for LA getting
seed<br>
funding from PONCLA for <a href="http://linux.conf.au" target="_blank">linux.conf.au</a>,
but handing back 4 or 5 times<br>
that funding to the parent org when it's all done, and this
argument<br>
doesn't really hold much weight.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not sure where this process came from. Why wouldn't we
just be updating the name on our existing account? </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div>
Are you proposing that under the new scheme that each "sub
committee" of PONCLA won't even have a bank account? Ouch. I feel
sorry for the PONCLA treasurer.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. That's not how it's done now - the subcommittees that need accounts already have them. Some (such as SLUG and LOGIN) have no regular expenses so don't have an account.</div>
<div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Compare this with the paperwork to create the Parent Organisation Not<br>
Called Linux Australia, then moving Linux Australia under PONCLA,</blockquote></blockquote></div><div>That's not what is being proposed. No new organisation will be created; the existing organization will simply register a new trading name and start to use that.</div>
<div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">shuffling bank accounts around to be owned by relevant orgs, creating new ones,</blockquote>
</blockquote><div><br></div>I don't understand why bank accounts would need to be shuffled, or why new accounts need to be created (and even if new accounts need to be created, it's trivial)</div><div><br></div><div>
<blockquote type="cite"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">making sure the audit trail is clear for LA getting seed<br>
funding from PONCLA for <a href="http://linux.conf.au/" target="_blank">linux.conf.au</a>, but handing back 4 or 5 times<br>that funding to the parent org when it's all done</blockquote></blockquote></div><div>I think you're referring to the scenario where Linux Australia is a sub-committee under PONCLA, and assuming that the LA sub-committee will pick the winning LCA bid.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Even in that scenario, I don't understand why PONCLA would give funding to one sub-committee for that sub-committee to give to a different sub-committee? Wouldn't PONCLA just give the money directly to the LCA sub-committee, based on advice from the LA sub-committee?</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
My point is that you can't argue that creating a new entity and
absorbing other orgs already with their own bank accounts is less
paperwork than opening a new bank account for an ongoing event. I've
been there and done it for LA. Twice. It's not that hard, and not
that onerous.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As far as I know, no-one is proposing to create a new entity and absorb other orgs, so I don't see why your point (correct though it is) has any relevance to this discussion</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>