RE: The Daily Meme #833!

I know that the accounting is ridiculously simple, almost only dev time. That's why I asked for a commitment to use the formal double entry bookkeeping format, as once you set up the spreadsheet it would be almost no effort at all to update it monthly - but, you would be the first proposal to commit to and use GAAP, demonstrating to all other recipients of DHF funds that you were supporting that standard, which would provide incentive to them to do so too.

I'm not 'back' on the topic. I stick to my guns until I'm dead, or I'm proved wrong and have to change my mind to become right. I committed to only voting for the Return Proposal until proposals committed to using GAAP. That's why I even bothered you about it. I wanted to support your proposal, but couldn't without breaking my word, or you using GAAP.

While you have stated forthrightly what the funds would be used for, and it's almost inconceivable that would change, that isn't the same as providing the income and expense specifically and periodically. That is actual double entry bookkeeping, GAAP, and my commitment. Particularly your proposal has such a vanishingly infinitesimal potential for fraud - because most of the funds were for dev time to begin with, and even if all of the funds went to that it would still be a good spend - that if there was ever a proposal that I would relax my insistence on GAAP for, that would be yours.

But I won't relax my commitment, and my measly vote wouldn't change the outcome of your proposal. I just wanted you to set a standard for other proposals that would cost you very little, because other proposals need to be held to account because they are being credibly accused of theft by fraud. I want to reduce the threat of fraud, and requiring GAAP for DHF fund recipients is like a least minimum anti-abuse measure. You're almost certainly sick of me blathering on about this, so I'll shut up and leave you be.