On 04/22/2012 02:27 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On Sun, April 22, 2012 1:52 pm, Robin Gareus wrote: >> On 04/22/2012 12:12 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, April 22, 2012 11:24 am, Robin Gareus wrote: >>>> On 04/22/2012 11:15 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm still not sure why you don't want businesses to give people round >>>>> here >>>>> money. >>>> >>>> Not at all. "people 'round here" can take all the money they want from >>>> anyone for whatever they deem fit. >>>> >>>> but linuxaudio.org itself will have a hard time. Usually money comes >>>> with obligations and we are in no position to handle that properly. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe I am naive but I thought our obligation as a consortium was to >>> discuss these topics and come to a workable solution that benefits all >>> members. >> >> just take it in stride. -- Your obligation as member of the management >> board is also to meet with the others at least once a year :) [ see 2. >> at http://linuxaudio.org/policy ] >> > > Funny that no one brought it up until now... I did. 4-5 times over the last 7 years. Most of the LAO crowd meets at the Linux Audio Conference but the majority of the Management Board has been absent there in recent years. [..] >> My personal opinion aside: >> >> I'm in favor to maintain a reasonable approach. >> The freedom of the community (no user-tracking, no obligations WRT to >> content posted on the site, no harassment, no discrimination, etc) takes >> priority. We should _not_ be "completely anti advertising", but think >> twice before adding ads or agreeing to 3rd party conditions. >> >> We can certainly express gratitude or favor companies that support >> linuxaudio.org but must be careful about maintaining independence. >> >> It's not possible to generalize advertising campaigns, but online >> marketing techniques usually come with strings attached.. >> >> Nobody complained that you put a link to _your_ site on the pages _you_ >> maintain on *.linuxaudio.org - but 3rd party interests - esp paid - are >> questionable. >> > > Hence the request for clarification of Policy. Instead all I get is a knee > jerk reaction and irrational prejudice. Hardly conducive to making > progress... I tried hard to explain the position and make it clear that it's not a /knee jerk/ reaction. let me try this way: the few bucks that linuxaudio.org could make via adverstising on linuxaudio.org will - in commercial context - never be able to pay for the services linuxaudio.org provides - and not even pay for the administrative overhead. If you have a viable business plan, we're all ear. > So a policy that sets clear guidelines is completely out of the question? Dunno, that's a question for the management board, not me. linuxaudio.org has no treasurer, no guidelines or infrastructure to deal with donations or money. There are no established procedures how the Board needs to agree and how to deal with such funds. Besides that, a policy would need to be in accordance to the rules of the Commonwealth of Virginia and Virginia Tech (our host). Ico has elaborated on that in his email to you from 04/20/2012 02:57 AM CEST on the consortium list. >From what I've learned: official policies are best avoided and replaced with common-sense. > Is it simply in the "Too Hard" basket? It's in the "we're happily ignorant about it" basket :) robin _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
