[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fsfe-uk] AFFS
From: |
John¹ |
Subject: |
[Fsfe-uk] AFFS |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:49:21 +0000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.10 |
Let me make my position clear, I have always seen matters where others in
groupings such as unincorporated associations handle the monies and assets
of the association as being fraught with risk from, incompetence, lack of
due diligence, ignorance, and yes a certain amount of temptation. Which is
why there is legislation covering things such as separate and several
liability. Let everyone be quite clear, the management of the AFFS since
the 2004 AGM, has been of less than an acceptable standard. To just step
away from such a failure, re-erect a similar structure, and to not put in
place safeguards to prevent its re-occurrence, would be foolish at the
very least.
This list, which itself was originally put in place to act as the
communication conduit for the AFFS, should at the very least uncover why
the AFFS ended up in the position it did, who took the decision to return
the subscriptions, and their reasons for doing so. Not to do so is to
invite the same thing to happen again.
--
John Seago
GNU/Linux Registered User No. #219566 http://counter.li.org/
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, (continued)
Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Nick Hill, 2009/03/01
Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Nick Hill, 2009/03/01
Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, MJ Ray, 2009/03/01
[Fsfe-uk] AFFS,
John¹ <=
[Fsfe-uk] AFFS, John¹, 2009/03/02
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Adam Bower, 2009/03/02
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Ian Lynch, 2009/03/02
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, John¹, 2009/03/02
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Adam Bower, 2009/03/02
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, John¹, 2009/03/02
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Sam Liddicott, 2009/03/03
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Alex Hudson, 2009/03/03
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, John¹, 2009/03/03
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS, Adam Bower, 2009/03/03