[LUAU] Hello - My Name is HOSEF

[Jim Thompson]

On Mar 28, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Angela Kahealani wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-28 10:30:03 Dave Burns wrote:
>> also seemed possible that the whole thing is some personal vendetta
>> or power sturggle between Scott and Jim.
>
> Apparently it's *WAY* bigger than publicly known.
> Until this blow-up I didn't have any awareness that HOSEF *had* a  
> board, as all the action has come from Scott.

'all' is inaccurate.
'most' may well be.

> If any of the allegations  between Scott and Jim are true, and  
> especially if they're all true,
> then HOSEF maybe should just shut down. If it mostly blew up in anger,
> then it's time to make peace, withdraw the allegations, and get on  
> with
> life. If it doesn't escalate to lawsuits, then maybe HOSEF should go  
> on
> with only one of them, not both... in which case, I'm going to
> paraphrase Linus' "show me the code", and say that, it's pretty clear
> that Scott has been the one to "show the community some action", and  
> is
> the one with a community reputation, and would be the one I'd have to
> vote for if only one stays at HOSEF, regardless how HOSEF gets
> restructured.

You might ask Scott about his plans for staying in Hawaii when Tina  
deploys in October.

Perhaps part of this has been a 'smokescreen' so he can lay the blame  
of HOSEF's failure at my feat, rather than owning up to having not
developed a structure that would allow HOSEF to survive the departure  
of any one person.


> If the allegations can be redacted, peace made, and an
> alignment of will found, then maybe HOSEF can go on with both.

Allegations?

Here are some facts for you to mull:

Its true that Scott threatened me with violence while I have not  
threatened him with violence.

Its true that Scott took political action, on HOSEF letterhead about  
the eWaste bill, threatening the non-profit status of HOSEF.  An  
action he took without even notifying the board.

Its true that Scott attempted to distract from this action by labeling  
my call for the HOSEF membership to call their own representatives  
about the eWaste bill as "political action".

Its true that Scott continues to significantly indebt HOSEF without  
board approval or oversight.    Until two days ago, we weren't told  
that the 'rent' on the storefront in an auto parts store cost $1500.

Its true that Scott baselessly called for my resignation from the  
board, because he was upset.  Seems to be his mode of operation,  
because its also true that Scott has driven several others from the  
board over the years that HOSEF has been in existence.    Its like a  
man who's been married 5 times because each of his wives were  
"bitches" who gave him grief.

Its true that I've advocated for elimination of the "Executive  
Director" position, putting Scott directly on the board, rather than  
allowing the current situation to continue.

Its true that Scott threatened to basely label me a homosexual and a  
child molester to Aloha Council in attempt to drive me out of the Boy  
Scouting activities in which I'm involved.

Its true that I've put Scott on notice that I will expend considerable  
resource in the legal arena defending against and correcting his  
misbehavior (such as absconding with the domain name and content of  
hosef.org, relocating same to dreamhost despite my call for a short (1  
week) delay so the board could review same), if necessary.   Legal  
battles are almost always "resource fights", and while HOSEF doesn't  
have many resources, I do.   The domain name, reputation content of  
hosef.org, bank account, eWaste, etc all belong to HOSEF (a  
corporation), not Scott Belford as an individual.

This promise to back HOSEF in the legal arena is not unlike Gilmore's  
famous promise to back the FSF in court with his personal finances  
should the need arise.

Here are some opinions:

Both Scott and I "care about" HOSEF, though we have different views.
I think eWaste is a dead-end for the organization.
I think there are more creative, scalable uses of our time that will  
do more for "FOSS" in Hawaii.

> As a non-member, I have no vote in the matter,

Since you're calling for membership, will you be the first to join?

> so maybe it's time for HOSEF membership to be given the choice who  
> to keep, in what positions, and
> what HOSEF's agendae should be, considering the possibility of   
> replacing both Scott and Jim.

All it would take for me to resign is for a simple majority of the  
board to ask me to do so.

> FLOSS is about community, so the
> community should chose,

We're not developing FLOSS here.

> I know that a variety of people donate time and energy, but it's  
> always
> been Scott who initiates, communicates, and leads everything.

Because, apparently its *his* charity.

> It appears that both Scott and Jim have $ claims involved,

For me (at least, I won't speak for Scott), its not about the money,  
its about what is right and what is legally required of the  
corporation and its board.

> and that the present situation at HOSEF is cash poor, even if  
> wealthy in e-waste.
> It would seem sane to try to recover some $ value from the e-waste,
> and square things $-wise with Scott and Jim.

I don't want money, I want a receipt for what I've donated.   Legally  
HOSEF should have generated same in the tax year when the donation  
occurred.

> If they'd retract/redact  allegations and begin to communicate, then  
> maybe all of this could move
> back in-house as HOSEF's internal business, instead of dragging the
> whole community with them into the out-house.

The only reason it moved here is because Scott chose to 'moderate' the  
hosef-managers list (and continues to do so.)

>> I have two old Sun servers that I was going to donate to HOSEF. Does
>> HOSEF still want them?
>
> how much power do they eat?
> are they cute little units?
> or hulking behemoths filling whole 19" equipment racks?

I think HOSEF has a position of asking for cash in order to discard  
used computers/monitors now.

Scott's recent behavior (calling whats happening "unfair" and  
"slanderous") only reminds me of Howard Schultz's objections to a  
California court ordering him to pay back $86.5 million (plus  
interest) in tips to Starbuck's California employees while continuing  
the same policy of splitting tips between the baristas and their shift  
supervisors.  A clear violation of California labor law.

Jim