[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I think this is a reasonable idea, but should be put off for a few >> months while we finish migrating to the new machines and ramp up our >> membership. Given that we wouldn't need consensus for such a decision >> I fail to see the damage done by delaying until perhaps February or >> early March. > > I see the damage as proceeding without any policy in our largest expansion > effort yet. I don't even care as much about carbon offsetting or this > particular issue so much as proceeding without any policy at all. As I > stated on the EnvironmentalPolicy page in July, the longer we wait to > start, the harder it will be to start. That's a fact.
You cannot make assertions about conditions in the future. > We could have had an environmental policy from Day 1. We've been > operating as a corporation for almost two years now and as an > unincorporated group for years longer, but we still have no policy > whatsoever. It's not going to get easier once another 200 members join. I think having an environmental policy is a lot less important than you feel it is. Our resource impact is already minimal; we use a bit of electricity and not much else. I suspect that you are also incorrect about it becoming more difficult to implement as the number of members increases. I think it would be easier because the amount each person had to pay would begin to approach zero. -- http://unknownlamer.org Jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm just thinking aloud; isn't thinking allowed? 443E 4F1A E213 7C54 A306 E328 7601 A1F0 F403 574B _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
