| |
|
08-June-97Note: it is a general Troubled Times policy to change the names of IRC participants to screen names and remove personal discussions that occurred during the chat in the interests of privacy.
VIOLA: My sister is on the board of a non-profit, and she frequently shares issues with me. This is a train museum, very male dominated, and they tried to get her to sit quietly and not be involved. Told her she was breaking a bylaw they had written. She returned with state law saying she MUST get involved in issues and questions :-).
VIOLA: We're so international! Sweden, Australia, Mexico
GREEN LADY: Hasn't technology been grand so far.
VIOLA: I don't think technology will go away! We will have high tech pockets, but more likely spotty high tech! By that I mean, one group will have a good windmill, another a radio, etc.
VIOLA: My main concern about the non-profit is that we have the right backup for all positions. I know you can! I was just thinking that the real old timers are accepting these positions, interested.
NORSEMAN: And I am a old timer :)
VIOLA: Longbow and I and you! First at the start up, and now probably going to get elected! This will work out well, I just have a gut feeling. Not that we don't have our enemies. But we must move forward. There's more pushing toward the good than festering to try to stop us.
NORSEMAN: I agree with you about that Viola.
VIOLA: I remember when we first registered with the Search Engines, ZetaTalk and Troubled Times both, and suddenly started getting more visitors.
GREEN LADY: There will always be enemies, but we must not divide ourselves.
VIOLA: There was a rash of festering complaints from many who were first finding us, and then the attempts to divert and disband the group
GREEN LADY: We just must keep moving forward and adjusting along the way.
NORSEMAN: I remember it.
VIOLA: ZetaTalk first came under the eye of religious folks. I distinctly remember one guy "how dare you be so blasphemous, and you misspelled the work Arc!" :-) Arc of the Covenant, that was. Maybe I'm misspelling it now, again :-) Kind of like a road trip, you know you're going to run into traffic or maybe have a flat along the way, just anticipate it and get going.
GREEN LADY: The religious groups will always oppose us. Those are some of the folks that worry me
VIOLA: The nature of this group has held pretty firmly, not swayed a lot, since inception under Longbow
GREEN LADY: They want to hold on to power regardless of the outcome.
VIOLA: Mostly they just bluster, GreenLady, and then go away.
NORSEMAN: I think that we are a 'very' strong group.
VIOLA: Their technique is to say "you're with Satan" and try to keep folks from taking us seriously, that's about it. They do this now with so many parts of the world around them, nothing much new.
GREEN LADY: sometimes bluster turn festering sores and then they take action from within. This we must guard against!
VIOLA: I heard that organized religions are slipping membership, at least Christianity is (maybe not the Muslim countries). Oh, maybe the Muslims ARE, as in Iran the moderates won the election!
NORSEMAN: Some people see aliens as Demons. People want to be free, not too many rules.
GREEN LADY: Yes, my husband's family sees anything that is not the same as themselves demons.
VIOLA: We don't say anything directly against organized religions, so they lack a reasonable excuse to attack. By keeping out of religious discussions as we have on the list serve and web site, we take away their excuse.
VIOLA: What are your concerns about the non-profit, Longbow, what you think we might face, etc.
LONGBOW: Yeah, ZetaTalk is what will get them going I think
VIOLA: Lack of funding is of course a concern but is what we have NOW so not a new problem. Funding that wants to control us may happen, but our bylaws will prevent that from occurring.
VIOLA: I could see a grant being funded, tight restrictions on the grantee, and then the grantor getting pissed off because the board and non-profit in general keeps on going, not according to the restrictions. Even though our bylaws state otherwise, they will try this control mechanism.
LONGBOW: Viola: first off, I just finished reading your last cut at the bylaws, and while we say over and over that the non-profit is separate from Troubled Times, the volunteer group, the bylaws themselves connect the non-profit directly to the volunteer group - real confusing.
VIOLA: I've not got the right vehicle yet on that! This needs to be clarified, but perhaps the non-profit bylaws is NOT the right place! I think if we don't say all that someplace, that confusion will exist, but you're quite correct, putting it in the bylaws seems to say they ARE together, not separate. Is there something in a non-profit incorporation papers like a background or history section? That would be the place!
NORSEMAN: In one way or the other Troubled Times and Troubled Times, Inc. will still be one, right?
VIOLA: Say, if a non-profit came from another non-profit, was a spring off from that, and wanted to give folks the opportunity to understand and sort out any confusion they might have. Same name, same goals, etc. Maybe we need to change the name?!?
LONGBOW: I think that grantors will want a close association with the non-profit; NOT the person who wrote and will perform work on the grant. They want the management and oversight that the non-profit will be legally bound to provide.
NORSEMAN: I don't think that's necessary, to change the name
VIOLA: Norseman, NO! They are separate entities! The only connection is that they have some of the same people working as members. This does not make them "one".
NORSEMAN: Viola: I understand.
LONGBOW: A place in the incorporation papers, where the mission statement is, may be a place to explain all this.
VIOLA: Longbow, but if the grant restrictions are accepted by the board FOR THAT GRANT, then our monitoring and management of the grant will be in accordance with that. This legally satisfied the contract, and they have no complaint, right? Longbow, I tried to label that and place it there, but I think I kept it scattered in the bylaws too. I'll pull that all up into one place, etc.
NORSEMAN: Good idea, I think
VIOLA: For instance, if they say the grant can only be used to by blue, never red, and we stick to that for the grant, but then the board turns up buying RED to paint the board room, so to speak, they legally have no complaint. Might complain anyway :-), knowing how people with money think and act.
GREEN LADY: Yes, anyway to control.
LONGBOW: Yes, I think that will be satisfied; but the wording left me rather confused about the relationship between the grantor and grantee. Actually, the grantee should be the non-profit, not the person writing the request and doing the work.
GREEN LADY: The non-profit is always in charge. Worker secondary..
VIOLA: Humm, if the grantee is the non-profit, then the grant request could be seen as affecting the non-profit! Not good! Stipulations would get real tangled.
LONGBOW: But that doesn't come across in the bylaws very clearly.
VIOLA: I have family that get grants and works at Universities. A given grant binds the person or group that writes the grant, and the U has to ensure that they don't let otherwise happen under their nose, or the money gets taken back, etc. But the grant restrictions don't tie the U down at all!
LONGBOW: It will affect the non-profit anyway! Non-profit has to administer the grant and insure it is adhered to. It would be the non-profit that the grantor would be willing to issue a grant to; not an individual.
VIOLA: Mostly the U worries that the grant will be withdrawn, due to breaking rules, of not renewed, and then they will have to pick up that portion of the research guys salary. Many tenured folks at U are partially supported by grants, the U uses the money this way, to cover salary. The non-profit agrees to act as watchdog and only write checks against the grant if in accordance, but this is NOT agreeing to change our philosophy accordingly!
NORSEMAN: Agree.
GREEN LADY: That must be clearly understood by all.
VIOLA: Say for instance that you care for another's child, baby-sit, and the parent's insist that the kid gets a peach at 3:00 every afternoon. You do this for this kid, not your own, and the rules of YOUR household don't change!
NORSEMAN: I know what you mean
LONGBOW: My experience was that part of the contract always imposed requirements upon the university for seeing that the money was spent correctly.
VIOLA: When push comes to shove in non-profit's the bylaws are what determine the outcome. My sister is on the board of an non-profit, and this just came up. Folks were doing their own thing, and complained when she did the right thing, and the bylaws were where it got settled! You've heard the term, Bible thumping, meaning a preacher refers to the Bible. Well, she Bylaw thumped :-). Oh, Longbow, for seeing that the money is spent correctly, absolutely! Just not changing the overall way non-profit is run, etc.
LONGBOW: Should the grantor want something of the non-profit itself that wasn't satisfactory with the Board, then the grant was negotiated or outright refused.
VIOLA: In other words, apply STRICTLY to the spending of that money, nothing else. Longbow, right on refusal or acceptance.
NORSEMAN: Agree
LONGBOW: Spending of the money and making sure that the work agreed to is what is being done.
VIOLA: Say we have two grantors, and the grantees live next door to each other. One grant says they can't work on Sundays, another has no restriction. The one grantor gets mad because there's so much work going on during Sunday, but has no leg to stand on. We're not putting out funds for the Sunday restricted grant, and the other is not restricted, so non-profit is doing its job! Right?
NORSEMAN: I think you are right.
VIOLA: I suspect that someone determined to change the direction of non-profit would try to do so by large infusion of money, for a particular purpose. Say we are trying to be egalitarian, primitive countries as well as high tech, and they want just high tech. So we get a bunch of high tech grants, NONE of our other requests get funded, and any reporter find us just obsessed with high tech! They changed the nature of the group, or so they might hope.
LONGBOW: Another thing I had a bit of a problem with is a bylaw stating that the person doing the work shall NOT be compensated for his time. There is no need for that stipulation; in fact, the work may be such that the grantee needs to work full time to accomplish it, and may need to hire employees or contractors. Take a dome community for example.
NORSEMAN: And that should not happen, that they can change the nature of the group.
VIOLA: Oh, I tried to say that salary can be covered by a grant, in the check writing section, check to person there. Mentioned salary.
GREEN LADY: Yes, I agree. Someone may need to be paid to complete work.
VIOLA: The compensation rule was for board and officers, etc.
LONGBOW: Yes, I saw the salary section; but it is contradicted in a previous section.
VIOLA: We could change that compensation rule and say non-profit board and officers could get compensation if there is money given to the non-profit that is no-strings-attached. Another means of getting this type of admin. money is to take a portion of any funded grant, I suppose. Don't know how it is done.
GREEN LADY: Now that is the sticky part. open to interpretation by others.
NORSEMAN: I don't know it either, but I think there is information about that.
LONGBOW: I don't think a big grant for high tech would change the nature of the non-profit at all. We will still apply for grants in all other levels and it would all be published on the web in the same place. No chance for confusion about our intentions.
VIOLA: We could say that the Board and officers are volunteering their time, but as the non-profit grows this could change and compensation may occur as full time or even part time work becomes necessary, etc.
NORSEMAN: Yes we could say that.
LONGBOW: Taking a portion of a grant is normally done by specifying an amount for overhead and administration.
VIOLA: Long, I agree that any such attempt to paint us different, by funding only certain grants, would not work! Only if we allowed that to happen, and no chance of that. Longbow: YES, the perfect solution. Then as the demands pick up, the money will also! Keeps pace, keeps in step, etc.
NORSEMAN: It depends on what will happen in the future (this year, next year etc.)
VIOLA: I know U's have full time staff that monitor grants within the U, and this MUST come out of the grant money, one would think. Seems a portion of each grant could go to admin. and overhead, and thus if the work becomes full time, demanding, salary to officers might occur. When you get a group of more than one or two, you can arrange health benefits too. I think this will grow slowly over this next year, and just as well as we need to iron the kinks out. By the time things get heavy, we'll have out procedures working smoothly :-).
LONGBOW: Spot, I think, made a very good point about corporate insurance that I was glad to see, as I already have it in the strawman books, as well as other insurance such a health.
VIOLA: I want to ask what the concerns are, the worries, about the non-profit. I know the issue of folks attempting to control Troubled Times volunteer group by controlling the Troubled Times, Inc. is a concern.
NORSEMAN: I don't have any worries about the non-profit, I think it's a good idea, don't have bad feelings about it
VIOLA: This won't work, but will certainly be tried! If the non-profit pays salary to officers of clerical, then they can arrange to have health benefit, medical coverage, like normal employers do.
NORSEMAN: If we arrange everything in a good way (if you know what I mean) than it will work fine
LONGBOW: At first, I was very concerned about a split within Troubled Times; but things seem to be coming together now, big sigh of relief!
VIOLA: Large non-profit's have many clerical and staff, and pay them salary and health and even, perhaps, retirement benefits.
GREEN LADY: I am worried that outside forces will try to disrupt group by infusion of money. Then going to the media (leaking) and saying look they are crooks no answers. Don't Listen.
VIOLA: Yes, folks can work for both. They have the same goals! GreenLady, meaning that we TOOK the money, but didn't produce solution sets?
GREEN LADY: Correct
LONGBOW: Should we get to the point of paying salaries, the books are already set up for all the tax stuff associated with that.
VIOLA: I suspect that attempts to paint the non-profit as having leaning might be tied, if lots of grant money is places in one area, then it could be make to LOOK like this is our concern. The board will need to be sensitive to that, appearances!
GREEN LADY: We took money from organization that was "tainted" in some way therefore we are associated with corruption. Thus discrediting us.
VIOLA: Longbow: Great on the books setup!
NORSEMAN: GreenLady: I doubt that such a thing will happen to us.
GREEN LADY: I hope not!
LONGBOW: GreenLady: we have to be smart about that and just avoid them.
VIOLA: GreenLady, so, we need to look at the hand that proffers us funding! The point being, don't be so damn eager to get funding that we accept the first things coming along! Well, none of us is desperate, we're all living our lives of .. quiet desperation, as they say ":-).
GREEN LADY: Absolutely, all organizations should be checkout and I mean all trails that lead to the person giving the money us. Look at tobacco companies work done by so many but all lead back to them.
LONGBOW: I think our best protection will be diligent and detail writing of grant requests and eventual contracts.
NORSEMAN: Longbow: right.
VIOLA: For instance, if the gun groups, the ones that claim automatic weapons are needed by hunters and are extreme in these views, wanted to fund a bunch of grants so a smear could occur. We might have to turn them down, for appearances sake.
GREEN LADY: Yes we would have to turn them down.
VIOLA: Another way is to accept but only if the funds are placed in an neutral hand, like a bank, so the bank is actually controlling the release of funds to the Treasurer.
GREEN LADY: If we knew they were backers of the grant.
VIOLA: Would ruin their plot, so to speak.
LONGBOW: I think that when we do accept a grant, that by the fact that we are totally open to public view, that appearance of wrong doing just won't happen. Most folks will think that we are nuts; but that's all.
VIOLA: Politicians can be tainted by the sources of campaign funds, for sure. Often the politician has no notion, staffers accept the funds, and then BOOM, in the media, the connection is harped upon.
GREEN LADY: I am more concerned with sources than any action of ours.
LONGBOW: I suspect that most sources will not want to be in the public eye.
NORSEMAN: Longbow: and the reason?
VIOLA: Longbow: YES, a totally open approach, with the log of the board meeting on the web, will squelch it all!
GREEN LADY: Public or no Public, we must know for certain that all money is "free from any association of corruption. It can undo all the work of group. (the larger population)
NORSEMAN: GreenLady: right.
VIOLA: Most Corps have a lot of back room discussions going on. In fact, they WANT secrecy, as chronism and good 'ol boy activities start up right away! We intend to be utterly different, the IRC logs open, the list serve open to all, etc.
NORSEMAN: Viola: yup
VIOLA: This may be tried, but the only outcome is that the non-profit gets funded and they don't' get their ends met :-)
GREEN LADY: And that is way I voted yes.
VIOLA: Their ends, as in hidden agenda, to smear the non-profit.
LONGBOW: I also have the thought that the non-profit may want to distance itself, at least in it's public records, with Troubled Times volunteer group and ZetaTalk; but be more general and focus on general cataclysm, like huge meteor hits earth. Lots of publicity about that and perhaps more sources of funding to do the same thing!
VIOLA: OK, beyond tainted funds, what concerns are there.
NORSEMAN: Longbow: I doubt that's a good idea.
GREEN LADY: Very bad idea, I my opinion.
VIOLA: I think we're building in plenty of checks and balances, audits and all, and structuring this so it won't be a burden but will WORK as intended. Norse and GreenLady, why do you say bad idea? (I also think so too, however)
NORSEMAN: Viola: most of the people joined Troubled Times by reading ZetaTalk, and some of these people could also join Troubled Times, Inc.
VIOLA: Of course, the Troubled Times list talks about "what do the Zetas think" on occasion, and I think this should be strictly left out of the board meetings, etc. Papers filed have NO mention of ZetaTalk, etc.
GREEN LADY: Message of group has not changed, Now you want to change what the group focus on. Division from within is still division.
NORSEMAN: Viola: I understand what you mean, but we should not change to much, lost our goal etc.
VIOLA: As the Earth changes move in the direction we have predicted, and more and more folks think a 12th Planet (by whatever name) is true, then we will get much more active!
GREEN LADY: We must be clear, not pushy, but clear.
NORSEMAN: Viola: I know.
GREEN LADY: The change in environment will validate our focus. No change really needed.
VIOLA: Norseman, the non-profit goals ARE the same as the Troubled Times list serve, etc., and should say that, which the bylaws will in that front section, mission and history, etc. ZetaTalk is not necessary. For instance, you notice that the bylaws say NOTHING of ZetaTalk.
LONGBOW: GreenLady: not change focus at all! Just change purpose to prepare for more vague cause of total world wide cataclysm. I'm speaking here only of the public incorporation papers and bylaws.
NORSEMAN: Viola: I know what you mean.
VIOLA: Longbow, funds for those in denial or not in the know may be less likely to come to us, but funds from those IN THE KNOW, who know a pole shift is right around the corner, may be greater - it balances out. Long: plus, I think that many of our grant requests will be helpful pole shift or not. For instance, indoor gardening, short wave internet, eating worms - good goals for a troubled world regardless of pole shift likelihood.
NORSEMAN: Viola: agree.
LONGBOW: It was only a thought, let's move on (grin).
VIOLA: Longbow: when we eventually vote on the bylaws and incorporation papers, we can have this as an issue to vote on! We can have alternative statements, and let the voting group decide. This would be those who opted to be members of the new non-profit.
NORSEMAN: Viola: right, agree.
VIOLA: I have to laugh at some of the models or template bylaws that Nolo Press puts out. They are so generic I don't know what the officer DOES :-). From time to time - as need arises - whatever the board deems to be done - like that. I say afterwards, what did they say?
LONGBOW: Viola: judging from the strong response here to the idea, I expect to generate an even stronger one within the membership at large. So, why waste time with it.
VIOLA: Long, I understand :-). Toe in the water, etc. Let me ask, do you all think the wording of the bylaws to plain, not fancy, or what? I'm trying to get the POINT down first, and expect that the lawyer will want to put legalese into it before the papers would be filed. The bylaws will probably be twice as large, when the lawyer fattens it out with "wherefore" or legalese.
LONGBOW: I think that the bylaws should be a guide as to our intent. That a corporate lawyer actually word the bylaws for our approval.
NORSEMAN: Viola: I think you 'stated' them good.
VIOLA: Longbow: that was my understanding too.
GREEN LADY: With the advent of Web TV the people accessing our info will be less technical we should try for a medium.
VIOLA: Our bylaws certainly reflect our caution at being run by money, rather than our ideals and purpose.
GREEN LADY: Something the lawyer will like.
VIOLA: I doubt most non-profit's are worded that way at all! GreenLady, we must bear that in mind. I've suggested that we put our bylaws on the web, along with IRC minutes of board meetings. We must tell the lawyer that we want the bylaws and incorporation papers to be as plain and understandable as can be, for this reason.
LONGBOW: I think that we need to discuss the subject of just where to incorporate.
NORSEMAN: Viola: right
VIOLA: Some legalese is necessary, they MUST phrase things in order to cover, etc. Longbow: what are your thoughts? Have you looked into this?
GREEN LADY: Does anyone in group have information on International Inc.
VIOLA: I know that Delaware gets a lot of regular corp.'s, as they allow more leeway or something, more freedom. Is that it?
NORSEMAN: No, but maybe our library has some info about International Inc.
VIOLA: The problem with incorporating in another state, is that if we bank in a state, we must either be incorporated there or registered there. I wonder if we could even incorporate in Delaware if we had no office there? GreenLady, I just read that many non-profits do business internationally, and that countries or stated where one "does business" the non-profit must register there.
GREEN LADY: I mean operation. With so many of us worldwide operation will probably be going on in different locations.
VIOLA: There are probably some countries we would want to stay out of, not tolerant or restrictive to non-profit's for instance.
NORSEMAN: Viola: yes that's right, the same over here.
LONGBOW: Were I to be elected treasurer, I don't think that it would be necessary to incorporate in Louisiana. Delaware is very popular because of very low corporate tax, and I don't know what else. I think the corporation should be where most officers are, or are close to.
VIOLA: GreenLady, we will have grantees all over the world, and grant money being spent all over the world. However, this is NOT "doing business" to my understanding.
NORSEMAN: Viola: right, it's something different, we are not a commercial organization
VIOLA: For instance, if the checks are being written from a bank in Louisiana, then the non-profit has to be either incorporated there or registered there.
LONGBOW: I think "doing business" is pretty much restricted to where goods are sold from.
VIOLA: But the check could go to Australia for a prototype something-or-other, and Australia need not be a non-profit registered country. My understanding.
LONGBOW: Viola: my understanding also.
ATOM: Not necessary. In some countries every check needs to be registered. And provision and taxes paid, etc.
VIOLA: Longbow: you're right! And for a non-profit, this might be the site where brochures or info was "sold" for $1 to cover costs. This place must be registered at least.
VIOLA: Atom, I think there will be various countries not the best for non-profit operation. However, grantee could live there. Just would be an overhead the grantor must understand.
LONGBOW: I think taxes, to include sales tax should be an important factor to consider.
VIOLA: If a grantee lived in the Arctic, then heating costs would be an overhead the grantor must understand. No difference! Longbow: I doubt there will ever be a place where "most" officers live!
GREEN LADY: Bantering of thoughts.
NORSEMAN: Viola: right, we are international.. :)
VIOLA: Look at what is shaping up! California, Louisiana, the Netherlands, and every VP nominated is somewhere else yet!
GREEN LADY: :)
VIOLA: Atom, when you see how the operations go, you may see solutions that seem like brick walls now. Take heart!
ATOM: Well, it's quite possible things will change, but I prefer to wait till then.
VIOLA: Longbow: yes, we would want to incorporate in a state that honored the non-profit principles, no taxes on funds received and spent in the non-profit goal, etc. Which is termed "public service" I believe.
LONGBOW: I am concerned about corporations in Louisiana, as it is the only state that is run by Nepolianic law. I think this applies mostly to civil law and not corporate law, but haven't read them all yet.
VIOLA: Louisiana has a colorful history, for sure. Delaware would be more SAFE, Longbow, as so many go there and there is some safety in numbers, etc. By this I mean, if there were serious problems there, then the crowd would not be there! The answer to the question, "is it safe to walk down that road", is gotten by the fact that a crowd walks there daily.
LONGBOW: OK
VIOLA: Some states have odd laws that only lawyers are aware of. I don't know, but a good lawyer should be able to advise.
LONGBOW: Anyone know how to get a copy of the federal laws on corporations and non-profits?
VIOLA: If the lawyer can practice in a number of states, they may be honest about it all, but if they can practice in only one state, they may heavily recommend that state! I think my Nolo Press may have that, and I'll check. They have floppies in the back with stuff already electronic, to send.
GREEN LADY: Good if a lawyer from within the group.
LONGBOW: Some states have their laws on the internet, at least tax laws; but there are also laws covering operation of the corporation, and I haven't found those yet.
VIOLA: Longbow: another way is by the Statue number 501. Maybe one could look that up on the Internet, and I know that libraries have the Statutes for sure. A law library, at a local U, would have that! GreenLady, I think we may have one or two!
NORSEMAN: Viola: I could search for it on the internet.
VIOLA: I suspect that a lot of our bylaws will get fine-tuned as we begin operations and encounter problems. My sister, who is on the board of a small non-profit, tells me a funny story. She said there were bylaws that made no sense, then someone with a long history said "that was when we were having problems with Joe, doing xxxx". So the bylaws were written to discipline a certain individual! Nuts, so funny!
LONGBOW: One thing for sure, we have a lot of homework to do. I'm not so much concerned about tax law as the IRS publishes it on the web; but corporate law compounded by nonprofit and international is bound to be really heavy reading!
VIOLA: My thoughts are that the web pages of the non-profit should look dramatically different than the Troubled Times pages, perhaps having a background color slightly light blue or something, and different banner. A visual perception that they are in another cyber room, so to speak.
GREEN LADY: Yes, I agree.
NORSEMAN: Viola: I agree too
ATOM: And a separate directory, for easier maintenance.
VIOLA: Longbow, if we get a grant request funded by a grantor, and are preparing for a board meeting on this, then THIS is the time to consult with a lawyer and accountant, and this info fed into the board members prior to the meeting, etc.
NORSEMAN: Good idea, Atom
VIOLA: The way the bylaws are written, we have TIME to do our research and amend the bylaws if necessary!
LONGBOW: One thing I did learn, at least in Louisiana, is that the incorporation papers are almost always very vague, like Purpose of business is to do business in the state of Louisiana. These are hard to change; but by-laws don't even have to be registered and can be changed at will by the Board of Directors.
VIOLA: Atom, absolutely a separate directory! Else we would be accused of not actually being separate at some point. Want to avoid fingers pointing, or at least nothing solid to point to :-).
ATOM: Actually, Troubled Times, Inc. could have its own domain, too?
VIOLA: Longbow: I think the structure is very workable, yes. From my sister's stories, it seems we should be careful not to knee jerk on the bylaws, but make them long term and concise always.
LONGBOW: a very good idea Atom.
VIOLA: Atom, an excellent idea! YES
GREEN LADY: I concur.
NORSEMAN: Yes, indeed.. Under what kind of domain name?
VIOLA: Atom, but to start, it could not be on many mirror sites this way, unless it had many domain names as ZetaTalk does. To start, for readership access, just another directory.
NORSEMAN: Viola: right.
VIOLA: Then when money arrives (within first year or so), do the domain thing.
LONGBOW: I'm rather disappointed at the turn out for this IRC, given the intense interest and emotions on the list serve.
VIOLA: I hope to have book sales and make a serious contribution to start lots of activity. My hope.
ATOM: I agree.
VIOLA: Maybe there are many trying to get on! I've been blocked for hours some IRC mornings, tried 100 times, for hours!
LONGBOW: Yeah, somehow, we have to have some startup $$!
NORSEMAN: Longbow: a bit yes, almost the whole chat is about the Inc.. But it's a important issue.
VIOLA: Then suddenly at 10:00, when the chat was already dead, I could get on!
VIOLA: Either the servers were busy and other chats timed out, or my bugaboo on the line went off for breakfast :-).
GREEN LADY: I just hope to survive with as much dignity and caring as possible for humanity.
VIOLA: Some problems are just too obvious as interference, and then I checked with my Internet Provider helpdesk, and they concurred! GreenLady, I keep thinking about little kids, toddlers, so very helpless and dependent, getting handed a worm burger instead of chewing sticks, etc. A small thing can make a big difference! Then they get a hug and don't care that they have ragged clothes, they are healthy and safe, etc. Injuries not treated, out in the cold rain, empty stomachs cramping day after day, can't sleep because of the dog packs, etc. This I want to avoid for children!
NORSEMAN: Viola: I agree.
LONGBOW: Another idea I had last night was about how to have public IRC Board meetings. If we conduct them strictly by parliamentary procedures and give only the non-profit members the password, anyone out of line can be immediately banned by the control op.
VIOLA: Aftertime, if we have groups that have prepared in some way or another, they can knowledge exchange, share info and seeds and tools, and soon we have good communities again!
NORSEMAN: Longbow: think that's a good idea, Longbow.
VIOLA: Even high tech can seed outward, if the hearts of those with high tech are in the right place.
GREEN LADY: That must be our goal. No matter what. We have a clear goal and work toward that. I hope we are all daffy and none of this is needed. That we are "nerds that need to get out away from terminals but we must work as thought we are not.
VIOLA: Longbow: I think we need that IRC control for board meetings, yes, nothing less! We may even have harassment such as blocking, so members can't attend.
LONGBOW: GreenLady: boy, do I agree!
VIOLA: If we know a member planned to attend, and then doesn't, we should reschedule, etc. Other forms of meeting should be explored and tried too, less interference, so this does not become a problem!
NORSEMAN: By the way, some of the newer IRC clients contain a flood protection.
VIOLA: We use IRC as it is so universal, but the board meetings are with a limited group. Norseman, what the heck is a "flood"?
LONGBOW: With the right software board meetings could be conducted via several very neat means, like the new Microsoft software with text, voice, common whiteboard, etc. That would only be really needed after we really get going.
VIOLA: Longbow: my husband is constantly chattering about all this. Teleconferencing is NOT that out of reach. It's just as good as hopping an airplane and meeting face to face, and SO much more convenient!
NORSEMAN: Longbow: yup, NetMeeting. But that means someone has to use Win95 or a Mac?
VIOLA: I understand the reason it is not used more heavily in business, is that the intimidation factor of face-to-face is missing! However, we're used to non-intimidation list serve, etc. :-), so should not have a problem with this. In fact, it's quite appealing to me. One way around problematic countries is this, for a grantee wanting to live in such a country, is to have a co-grantee that does business with the non-profit, and passes funds along to the one in the troublesome country!
LONGBOW: Norseman: yes, that's a problem; but when the non-profit gets enough operating $$ it could provide the proper equipment/software to those who need it. A perfectly good operating expense.
VIOLA: You know, a partner in Australia guys the goods needed for the prototype, and has them shipped to the partner in the troublesome country.
NORSEMAN: Longbow: And the program can also be used for videoconferencing, right?