Quote:
No it is not vital in any way. |
Well we are all in agreement then.
Quote:
I see you have recently registered. I'll forgive you then your ignorance. In fact, Jude has been quite forthcoming about his finances. It took years for Jude to accept the fact that he would need help from the members. It was the membership who pushed!! Finally he said, fine...please contribute, Head-fi needs the cash. Head-fi costs me XX amount every year and is only increasing. 25000 or so members, 300 or so have stepped up and contributed. The financial situation was revealed and members who felt like helping did so. It is now nearly a year since, and it is not as if there is a landslide of folks throwing money at him. A full disclosure of Head-fi finances will in no way institute some new found influx on a grand scale. |
The very fact that I have not seen it, nor has the other notable contributor doesnt indicate that its well publicised, nor particularly 'forthcoming'. If you want members to know about this information, then it has to be available! No-one has asked for full disclosure!!!! I dont think I am ignorant because I have not incidentally read the information disclosed a year ago about the matter.
I would assume the very fact that Jude did disclose his funds was so that he thought it would
help with the situation. Are you saying that he shouldnt have done so, as it was a pointless task?
Quote:
I don't follow in the least. This entire thread is not about Jude making money from Group Buys, it is about ensuring that folks don't get hurt and sponsors are not burned by having blatant advertizing in open forums from other manufacturers under the guise of a group deal. |
My point was purely that the attempts to request the possibility of greater financial transparency
could increase the donation levels and therefore lead to a lesser dependence on Sponsers, which surely everyone would agree is the best thing. In any case, I would find it rather odd if donation rates
decreased after the simplistic aspects of the finances of the site were clearly posted.
Quote:
No one needs to see it!! Jude isn't demanding anything!!! Please help out, that is all he is asking. |
No need to get worked up, we're all in agreement! No has said we need to see it, that it is vital (I thought this was made clear about 5 posts ago). This is an effort to
help Jude, by easing financial pressures.
Quote:
What is being suggested is a budgetary report, a financial anaylsis of the inner workings of Head-fi and the future goals of the organization. THose all fall withint the scope of an audit. The fact that it could be termed other, is simply beating around the bush. What was wanted was full financial disclosure. In essence an audit. Tyll hit it on the head. CAll it what you want, but Guru was fishing for detials which he is simply not entitled to, nor is anyone here in my opinion. |
Ha. This is ludicrous. If by saying how much many perhaps could be needed for the upkeep of the sight is synonymous with 'Auditing', well then the accounting implicatins would be quite interesting. A simply process of knowing the input and output of the sight, in a very rough fashion would perhaps aid further donations. Considering he has yet to even make a donation, I would be interested if the members involved think they are 'entitled' to knowing what is going on. They perhaps think they are 'entitled' to offer suggestions on how to better the forum, without being ripped apart and said to be 'dumb' 'repugnant', and all sorts of other things. I dont think Jude would take offence with people trying to offer him suggestions on how he could perhaps generate more donations. In fact, I think he would be offended if such suggestions were repressed or irrationally discarded without his word.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, in fact the very nature of my posts have been such that I have passively suggested the possibility (as I think were the other posters intentions) of releasing figures in order to help out this forum. To see that I am trying to pick a fight is quite odd, considering my motivations have been purely to try and improve this site (as were the other posters. The fact that you did not directly quote my post is irrelavent, considering you indicated that what was being demanded was an audit. While we agree that demanding an audit would be dumb etc. (w/e you said), no-one demanded such a thing. I think you are putting words into other peoples mouths, but no matter, no need for anybody to adopt an agressive tone! We are all here to improve this wonderful community.
Incidetnally, I see no reason why simply because I have no donated would be reason to dismiss my suggestions for ways to convince, people like me, to donate. I have a finite amount of money and I will donate to this site if it needs money, and currently I dont think it is being expressly made clear that it does to a level which warrents a £700 per year student contributing to a sight which has dozens of Sponsers and is run by relatively-wealthy middle-aged men!
*EDIT* looking at Jude's post, it appears as thought he agrees that indicating rough expendetures/input funds is a useful task. Making a clearer system for viewing such figures may persuade users like me part with their cash. I am already in debt so I am not sure I can donate at the moment, perhaps there could be another way of donating instead of the purely monetary?