MJ,
> The problem is not my reading comprehension. The problem is that the
> above reasoning makes no sense to me: if they're committing to do this
> work, why do they need the donations to be unrestricted? Surely if
> the donations are insufficient funding, they need to add more funds,
> not us
Jimmy Kaplowitz
> If you read the full bullet point from which you excerpted, it's clear that
> they're committing to do this work, but don't want the donations to be legally
> unusable if they're insufficiently funded.
I did read the full bullet point, but didn't think the rest needed
quoting.
