Board voting ends today, but...

[Egbert Eich]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:18:47PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> I'm pretty uncomfortable with the suggestion here.  No, wait, very
> uncomfortable.  (Not to mention that if any misuse of funds _did_ go on
> here, then it sucks to be me, because if that was the case, then I got
> not a single cent from my complicity.)

Not sure how this relates to what I wrote above.

> 
> > It's not as if X.Org didn't have a legal counsel - I would have expected 
> > that with the help of this the issue with PayPal could have been resolved
> > and the money been refunded.
> 
> No, not really.  If you read PayPal's T&Cs, it's mostly along the lines
> of 'we're entitled to all your money if we feel like it', and it turns
> out that they felt like it.  I'd hoped to use Google Checkout
> originally, but had misread its T&Cs, which led me to believe that we
> were not eligible to use it -- turns out this wasn't actually true.  So,
> again, mea culpa for being daft enough to use PayPal in the first place.
> 
> http://www.paypalsucks.com and others have a litany of horror stories
> about PayPal pocketing cash from accounts they thought may have been
> vaguely kind of suspicious.

Yes, there are similar web sites about almost every company doing business
with a wider group of people or at least having some sort of public exposure.

Has anyone ever tried to contact Karen, X.Org's legal counsel at the time
and asked about this?

Again, nobody is blaming you - neither for the amount of money spent nor 
for choosing PaypPal.

> > I don't think anyone is putting any blame on you as the organizer
> > of the event.
> > After all there was a justifiable reason for all the expenses and
> > there is no point arguing now if things could have been done at lower
> > costs.
> > It is more the intransparency of things which create an uncomfortable
> > feeling among some of the people here.
> 
> No argument that we should've been and should be vastly more
> transparent.

Agreed :)

Cheers,
	Egbert.