Well said, Linda.

Also, please keep in mind that it might be that the decision is to let donors of the existing funds decide what to do with those funds, while creating a more general policy for future. It's all on the table. We might need two seperate plans if that's the case.

I've just reorganized a bit. Now all you need to link to is this page: /conference/ScholarshipDecisions

Should undesignated be the category? They were given as scholarships for conferences, right? Not as truly general fund.

Good point, I fixed it (I think) so that it is clearer.

thanks :)

interesting link nmw pos disc 5

insightful link nmw pos disc 5

Thanks for starting this. Ted has a point, although as long as the funds go for the intended purpose the fiduciary duty to the original donors should be fulfilled, yes? Great initiative in doing this in a way that could support community funds for any number of purposes if that is desired.

At this point only 13 members have even viewed this discussion. We know who 5 of them are.

I might say I am discouraged.

dont be :)

you didnt seek 100 :D

You are THE eternal optomist I guess!

I have lurked and now reveal myself so that you know who 6 of them are. Is it clear that the donors, assuming we could determine whose money was spent, don't want the money back and will trust the community to spend it wisely?

Thank you David!

All of the donors have been individually contacted and chose to leave the funds in the Scholarship Fund to cover scholarships for future conferences (Those who chose other options have had thier money remitted already). Some donors specifically designated funds for African conferences so that the Africans could have the opportunity to meet even if we can't get them into the US.

David and Norbert,

Thanks for the necessary points to the discussion to get it on the front page.

Linda,

we're up to 14 now -- maybe you should add a please click here message to the title. Or say there's a big surprising waiting inside the thread. Offer a sweepstakes or something. Anything, just so the number goes up some more.

Note that I consider any of "my threads" to be big hits if more than 2 people read them (one of them being myself).

Now is there anything besides belly-button gazing going on here?

I thought this was about some kind of procedure, organization, old-fashioned rules and regulations -- if this is gonna be yet another world-changing new-fangled revolutionary flat out democratic polling mechanism I don't think I'm interested. I was hoping that maybe we would finally have a thread where fuddy-duddies could hang out and not be bothered with transparency or anything like that.

So who else is for having this be a members only area -- you know, secret handshakes and stuff like that?

;P nmw

It's only been up for a day... And there seem to be only about 30 active core members on O.net that stay on top of things. 1/2 the people in one day isn't too discouraging. Is it?

Anyway... I'm in favor of the Beyond YES approach for now (although it seems a bit unweildy to update as a workspace) and am concerned that it will be difficult to get 40 votes without an outreach effort.

Signing in transparently.

For what it's worth, I think this thread suffers more due to a marketing/scope issue than an available audience issue.

The title "Organization for Community Owned Funds" means what?

• What organization? (existing? new? noun? verb?)
• Which community? (one I'm a member of? an offline community? an online community? omidyar.net?)
• What funds? (how much are we talking here? are they mine to decide? yours? someone else's?)

So, come up with a name that indicates what it is you want folks to do when they get here? "$2500 unclaimed: help decide who should get a scholarship" (Maybe that should be the title of the discussion?)

Then, when you've got them in the door (they've clicked through to this thread), make it easy to understand what's expected of a person in participating in making the decision. I think I know what you're trying to do hear, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what it is you want me to do.

FWIW, I don't know if I agree with Arthur's assessment of the number of core active members, but if he said "who care about this organizing stuff" it'd feel more on target to me.

Thomas!

My man! High five!!!!!

;D nmw

interesting link nmw pos 5

insightful link nmw pos 5

"Help decide $2,500 in scholarships"

Also de-lurking from anonymity into instant transparency, I think Thomas has put his finger on exactly what this thread currently lacks: a clear and compelling title.

Thomas's own suggested title also sounds a bit too wordy for me and seems to need just a bit more pruning.

That's why I'm suggesting the above.

Well.... as long as we are clear that we are also hoping to establish something beyond that something that gives people trust in mechanisms for future giving. Hook then widen.

Does this mean no secret handshakes?

Could we settle on how wide the net needs to be cast to say it's a community solution? I'd say just getting 90% YES of a certain number of donors would be plenty to decide on what to do with the current money. Is that a place to start? Or is it best to go for the gold of a larger solution that takes in the future as well? Let's nail down the initial contract so we can get to work on the solution, okay?

If we say 90% of certain number of donors, then I think we will have to be careful not to say that this represents the community. Howevr, I think that dicernment can be made and it sets the appropriate target size. As one of the donors, I am open to hearing also what people who did not donate think of what we are doing. However, I am not sure I want them deciding what to do with money I inteded to be used to help people get to and from onet member gatherings.

Let me ask my question another way.

It's clear no one would object if the current donors made a plan to disburse the $2500.

It's also clear that the "community" could make any kind of rules it wants about future monies donated. If any prospective donor didn't like those terms, she could simply donate in a different manner, outside the estabilished practice, either directly to a recipient, or by establishing a different fund with different rules.

So my question is, is the $2500 part of the future fund that's being decided here or not? If it is, then other than needing a high percentage of donors to participate, donor status doesn't give special privlidges. If it is not, then maybe we should split into two seperate processes now, one for the $2500 and another for the future fund.

let community here = a widening donors & recipients circle?