I suppose the point is that all three of us agree with you that it’s not our place to be vetoing or even needing to provide our approval of every small thing that occurs in the space - personally, I lack the time and inclination to micromanage at that level. I suppose the reason why there is little engagement from the directors in this thread is that the point where we need to engage (actually ordering a thing) hasn’t occured. Sorry if that is what you were waiting for, but this never needed us to say yes or no, but did need a clear plan as to what which is missing.
From a legal and pragmatic point of view - passing purchasing responsibility downwards is problematic (and frankly a pain in the ass). It’s way easier if the (you’re calling it treasurer, which is defacto right now Tommen, and would almost certainly need to be a director going forwards for a whole collection of reasons) buys stuff on the company dime. Alternatively, buy and claim back is the less efficient way of doing it.
The easiest way to get this sort of thing moving is to have a discussion with broad appeal (Which you have), then someone take ownership over picking a thing, and then seeking approval (which you’d almost certainly have gotten if that had happened). I’d note that the quickest and most transparent way to do this (and almost certainly what we would have said) is though the members meeting (next tuesday is the first meeting since this proposal). I can understand that there is a time-locked frustration here and this feels pretty mundane, but to be honest, a lot of what we’re doing here is (or at least, dammit, should be) pretty mundane and a months turn around on a proposal isn’t THAT ridiculous.
The directors are here for a lot of things that are quite opaque (more often not because they’re unimportant, but because they’re reallyfreakingboring), but researching hoovers is not one of them, and personally, I was under the impression that this, like so many other things, should be solved by community consensus.
