This site was archived on 24 April 2012. No new content can be posted. The mailing list remains online and the site will stay in this archived state for the forseeable future. If you find any technical errors on the site, please contact Callum.

cs-dev-public-disabled: “Simply said, as of now, I am the only member on the board.”

While looking for the exact time that Casey mentioned he was the sole member of directors I found out that cs-dev-public is now cs-dev-public-disabled. I feel that there is a lot of information in there that should be public. Fortunately I still have it among my emails. Here is the specific email I was looking for. Also note how Dan Hoffer (one of the 4 founders) didn’t even know who Matt Whatley was.

Sent Januaary 28th 2007:

from Casey Fenton <>
to Promitheus <>,
cc Joe Edelman <>,
Aldo <>,
Daniel Hoffer <>,
Kasper Souren <>,,,
Duke <>,,
date Jan 28, 2007 3:06 AM
subject Re: Board of Directors, real decision making process

hide details 1/28/07




Simply said, as of now, I am the only member on the board. When we move
to 501c3 there will be several members. We are in the process of moving
to 501c3 and hope to do so in the next couple months. It is a
complicated process that must be done exactly right otherwise the IRS
will reject us.
- Hide quoted text -

Promitheus wrote:
> May i suggest that this discussion is moving to our group?
> I don’t see the reason to keep it here ;)
> */Joe Edelman /* wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea to have some spending guidelines and a
> small group of people that make financial decisions instead of just
> one.
> I will keep talking to Casey about this idea. I’ve put some sample
> spending guidelines (edit away!) on the wiki:
> –Joe
> On 1/28/07, Promitheus wrote:
> > I just don’t know …
> > for the Board seems that Dan knows what he is talking about …
> >
> > about the decision making process … i think we don’t have
> something
> > established!
> >
> >
> > Daniel Hoffer wrote:
> > So far as I know only founders are board members.
> >
> > I don’t know Matt Whatley. So I doubt he is on the board. Who is he?
> >
> > Good question about the decision making process.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > At 7:38 PM +1300 1/27/07, Kasper Souren wrote:
> > >I have some important questions:
> > >
> > >a) Who is currently on the Board of Directors of the official
> > >organization that is CouchSurfing? I thought it was the “founders”
> > >(i.e. Casey, Leo, Dan, Seb), but apparently Matt Whatley is in the
> > >Board as well. Who else joined? And, are the original members
> still in
> > >the Board?
> > >
> > >b) There have been a lot of questions about the decision making
> > >process. But most of those have been dealing with what I would
> > >consider minor issues. Real issues, such as regarding CouchSurfing
> > >finances and legal situation are much more important. So, who is
> > >deciding on those issues?
> > >
> > >Kasper
> >
> >
> > –
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > d a n i e l h o f f e r ( 4 1 5 ) 9 9 0 – H O F F
> >
> > “He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a
> > man.” — Samuel Johnson
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Looking for earth-friendly autos?
> > Browse Top Cars by “Green Rating” at Yahoo! Autos’ Green Center.
> >
> >
> –
> J.E. — 413.695.6578 —
> ————————————————————————
> The fish are biting.
> Get more visitors

> <*>

> on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

> <*>


19 Responses to “cs-dev-public-disabled: “Simply said, as of now, I am the only member on the board.””

  • wow! breaking news at last!

    So your big headline news is that Dan Hoffer didn’t know who some guy named Matt Whatley is? Really? The same Matt Whatley that YOU said was on the board in the source you were quoting. (Kasper: “but apparently Matt Whatley is in the Board as well”). So basically you’re saying that YOU claimed some guy was on the board and your big breaking news is that another guy doesn’t know who he is. Wow! Thanks so much for letting us all know!

    Are you having such a hard time digging up dirt to smear on the people who keep CouchSurfing going that you have to resort to things that YOU are creating now, Kasper? It’s pathetic.

  • I had been speaking on the phone with Matt in January 2007, because Casey trusted him as the lawyer of CouchSurfing. And I were to talk to Matt about the NDA (and then in the conversation it turned out that Matt considered the source code one of the major assets of CS). I was confused because Matt Whatley proclaimed himself that he was on the board of directors (on his LinkedIn profile).

    I don’t want to dig up dirt, I just think that some information should not be hidden away from the public. I think it’s a pity that cs-dev-public has become cs-dev-public-disabled – or was that necessary to keep CouchSurfing going?

  • Thank you, Kasper, for keeping this information available publicly. It IS part of the evidence for Casey Fenton’s perjury to cover up the fact that in 2005 he signed an employment contract with himself in violation of (at lesat) three laws, and might have to pay back the ~$70,000 he got.

    And: Hello, brave and beautiful anonymous hero! Thanks for focussing my mind on Matt Whatley.

    Interestingly enough, Matt Whatley himself didn’t seem to know that he was NOT on the board of directors, unless you suspect his (false) claim that he was to be an international lie. Also Matt Whatley has claimed to be Chief Finanical Officer (CFO) of Couchsurfing International Inc, and I never found this confirmed anywhere, until I read it in the charity registration filed in New Hampshire in November 2007 (the web site has always listed Jesse Fenton). Also interestingly, Matt Whatley claims to be the lawyer of both Couchsurfing International Inc AND Casey Fenton personally. Has he never heard of avoiding a “conflict of interest” as part of professional ethics?

    No wonder Casey Fenton’s employment situation has not been clarified, because Matt Whatley as CFO would have to ask the board to instruct himself as the corporation’s lawyer to take action against his other client Casey Fenton. As all private and public warnings seem to go unheeded, I think it’s high time to look into the personal liability of board members and officers of the corporation with regard to these irregularities: they are NOT allowed to help defraud the charity of our money.

  • Kasper’s post does count as important news, just for the mere fact that a channel of information created by the former developers to inform the public, for the sake of transparency and community involvement, has been closed.

    But much more important is the implication of a possible cover up. The email Kasper posted could be considered as evidence that Casey committed perjury, a felony, according to Pickwick, when he informed the State of New Hampshire about the constitution of the CS Board of Directors.

    This is in addition to whatever illegality may have been involved in Casey’s apparent claim that CS had already achieved 501(c)(3) status, with donations and volunteering possibly made under this false pretense, and possibly paying himself improperly (again, according to Pickwick).

    These questionable behaviors of Casey may have once again jeopardized CS, in terms of its legal status and the disruption that would occur should he be forced to step down (having made CS highly dependent on himself), as they did when he terminated CS in July, 2006, abandoning the Community.

    These are very legitimate concerns for people who care about CS, as I know Kasper does, especially because CS can be viewed primarily as a trust network and the apparent behaviors of Casey Fenton raise serious questions of integrity.

    Concerning ‘dirt’: Kasper has restrained himself very admirably, considering how much real ‘dirt’ he knows about but has never publicly revealed out of a sense of decency, I believe.

  • “Pathetic” is by the way an adjective coming up to my mind when speaking about people who have to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and can’t even express an opinion (or an insult) giving their real name…

  • Dan hoffer did not know about caseys decision as he was not part of the burning man groupies.The groups include Donia , Mattthew,Jim stone and the rest (most at Thailand now burning there too :) )Feel the Burn !!

    I love the way casey and his groupies keep trying to hide their past and hide their wrongs.Instead of just admitting it .

    Dont worry a LOT of people have archived all the text and photos from ALL the other CLOSED sites (the truth once out cannot be put back in the box).

  • @John: I’ve lived in the same house as Casey for more than 4 months, so yes, I could definitely throw more ‘dirt’ around.

    11:29 PM so the New NDA doesn’t have those clauses
    We tried to get approval from the “official CS” L&L lawyers, but
    they just said to put back a non-compete and CS-owns-everything clause
    11:30 PM whatley88: Can you look at the two agreements, then outline
    the section and subsections that you want changed?
    Who exactly is the Official CS?
    you mean casey?
    me: I meant the official CS lawyers, according to the website
    11:31 PM the official CS is the Board of Directors, or something like that
    whatley88: It looks like I’m the official CS lawyer now and I’m the
    Chief Financial Officer on the Board of Directors
    So I think it’s cool to deal directly with me

    The whole chat can be found here:

  • Two possibilities:

    Matt Whatley knew he wasn’t on the board and lied. That would make him dishonest.

    Or he thought he was. That would make him a fairly incompetent lawyer. It would also mean he was mislead by Casey.

  • Oh, and not to forget:

    Obviously also Dan Hoffer thought he WAS on the board, when in fact he was not, also obviously mislead by Casey.

  • wow! breaking news at last!

    @Michel83 who said: “Pathetic” is by the way an adjective coming up to my mind when speaking about people who have to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and can’t even express an opinion (or an insult) giving their real name…”

    My favorite part of this website (and why I can’t find a way to take it seriously) is how important it is everyone to know who exactly is behind each response. It’s not about what’s actually being said, but WHO exactly is saying it. The content isn’t (unless it’s “pro OCS” and “anti CS-establishment”) judged as is the person who’s saying it. That’s why I stay anonymous. If you knew my CS “screen name” you wouldn’t care or even know who I am. I’m no one. Even so, I’d immediately be made a “CS attack dog” and whatever I’d say would be judged accordingly by my nickname alone. I’ve seen it happen over and over again on this site.

    “OCS” (of whoever claims or doesn’t claim or want to be “officially” associated with OCS but just uses this venue to spout any anti-the-way-cs-is-running rhetoric) would have another person to vilify rather than the actually consider the content of their message they were getting out. You speak of anonymity but some of us who’ve checked in from time to time know that it’s either all about the person who’s saying it “pro OCS” or it’s about that the person NOT saying who he is. You say “open” but I know it’s only “open” if it’s someone who believe what the majority here wants to believe, just like every other organization, and just like CouchSurfing.

    As long as this culture of shooting the messenger and disregarding the message exists on OCS I’ll blatantly stay anonymous. Of course, continue to ignore what I’m saying because of it if you want to. It only proves my point.

  • “Are you having such a hard time digging up dirt to smear on the people who keep CouchSurfing going that you have to resort to things that YOU are creating now, Kasper? It’s pathetic.”

    I love people who hide the truth .Then make the whistle blower the bad guy .Does enron ring a bell?

    what is wrong with just saying “yes i said that ”
    But NO casey(owner of the google group) and his cronies wanted to hide the truth so they made the public group hidden.

    Other things hidden
    The google group for the csc thailand (they chose google groups as they did did not trust the global ambassadors like mikky mouth et al) .

    “if” you knew who “wow… whateva” is really ,you would want to join burning man :) .

    more news

    “La Crosse / Couch-surfing one way to travel”
    And this year, she has gotten even more involved. CouchSurfing chose Badzinski from among 200 applicants for 11 positions to go to Thailand for two months to work on the group’s public relations and marketing needs.

    “I think there is a lot of interest in developing relationships with people from other cultures,” said Dan Hoffer, who lives in California’s Silicon Valley and was among CouchSurfing’s four founders.

  • @ “wow breaking news”

    I personally just don’t like the anonymous thing, no matter if coming from “pro” or “contra” OCS (whatever that means).
    I by the way don’t know a lot of people posting here, so the “WHO” is not so important in itself for me; I just personally believe a anonymous opinion is less credible. If there would be an opinion by somebody supporting OCS staying anonymous, I would find it AS LITTLE CREDIBLE.
    By writing
    “The content isn’t (unless it’s “pro OCS” and “anti CS-establishment”) judged as is the person who’s saying it.”
    you are suggesting that I make a difference between “pro” and “anti”.
    But I don’t. I just don’t like anonymous postings, no matter if “pro” or “contra”.

    You complain about people posting on OCS, but your way of arguing is not much different.

    You write:
    “You say “open” but I know it’s only “open” if it’s someone who believe what the majority here wants to believe”

    If you would follow my posts and comments on this site you would see that I did have discussions with other people on OCS and don’t believe everything they say, like you’re trying to suggest. Other people are the same. Margaret often posts things that read quite different from what let’s say Daz posts.

    You’re trying to suggest that OCS are liars. Fair enough. I respect that.
    But you seem to suggest there is no open discussion on OCS and this is a lie all the same. When Doogie posted here in the comments as “pro” CS (what reads funny, because nobody on OCS wants to destroy CS, like I already heared it suggested from people), nobody told him to f*ck off.
    Lots of people actually told him the appreciate him posting here and me myself actually encouraged him to post on the blog itself.
    You also suggest that I follow everything that is written on OCS- what would hardly be possible, as different people on OCS post different opinions, there is no “The OCS opinion”.

    If you would read my posts you would know I have disagreed several times with the tone of some posts on OCS and you would know that I have also pointed out that OCS is one more puzzle piece in my mind that I do symphatize with, but that I am very happy about people like doogie or you discussing issues and explaining their opinion.
    I do think it is important to take the different opinions into consideration. Maybe you should start with it too? What about taking opinions on OCS into consideration (and the disagreeing with them if you want to), instead of rejecting them right away as “lies”?

    By writing
    “Of course, continue to ignore what I’m saying because of it if you want to.”
    you suggest that by now (as you wrote CONTINUE) I ignored what you’re saying. Did I? You don’t even know me and obviously didn’t read my posts on this site.

    You complain about people throwing dirt, but you just do the same towards me in your posts. All I wrote is that I don’t like anonymous posts; as a reaction to this you construct me, without apparently (!) knowing my posting history on this site, as somebody who has different standards for CS and OCS. Well, I don’t.

    It doesn’t seem to fit in your image of the OCS platform that there are people here with different opinions here who disagree with each other too. Oh and yes, I do know it exists on CS too, I personally never posted it doesn’t, as I have not enough insight into CS to judge about this.
    You try to picture me of the part of a dark empire where all have the same opinion. Well sorry, I’m not.

    So, to repeat that. Yes, I am interested in your opinion.
    I do think CS should listen to things written on OCS. I prefer doogies attitude to yours, because he was disagreeing, but honestly discussing with us. You just post here to say that everybody here is a dirt throwing liar.
    I think an open communication is important from all sides, so maybe you should swallow your emotions sometimes.

    I’m sorry I can’t prove you’re right, as you triumphantly declare. You thought I would just give you an insulting answer saying all CSler are liars. Well, no, I don’t think so, as I don’t have insight into CS.
    I actually am very pleased about everything you write and definitely take it into consideration in my opinion.

    I would just wish you would write things that are less agressive and go above “everybody here lies”. You obviously don’t come here to discuss and defend your point (like doogie did- thumbs up for that!) but just to jeer (Note: Got that word from a dictionary, hope it is the right one).
    I always DID critisized certain opinions on OCS being agressive or saying “everybody on CS lies”. I disagree with that too, because to me it seems like the situation is more complex (on both sides).

    But the image you’re giving of yourself is not better than the one of people I critisized on OCS.

    As said, sorry I can’t prove you right. You might rethink about your theory of OCS being a dark empire on which there is only one opinion that everybody follows.
    At least me myself am not part of it and I would be really happy to see you posting some more, if your posting would go above bitching- just like I hate the bitching from the side of people “pro” OCS. I by the way tend not to like opinions expressed in a very agressive and “screaming” way, like yours on one hand or of some people on the other hand. Kaspar, which you attack in your post (fair enough) is for example somebody whose opinion I read with interest, as he never goes under a certain limit of niveau and politeness.

    But I anyway and neverthelss (even to I have little sympathy for the tone of your posts) I do take your points in consideration, as I always try to train myself to take all opinions in consideration everywhere and on all topics in life and the world.

    As said, my basic statement was just that I don’t like anonymous posing, no matter from which “side”. Nothing more, nothing less. I would have called an anonymous “pro” OCS poster “pathetic” too.
    It’s everbody’s choice to stay anonymous, but I don’t have to like it.
    I would probably also less care about the fact that your postings are anonymous, if they would have more content and less insults. It’s actually interesting you say people here don’t pay attention at the content. Because I do.
    And hey, you know what? Doogies posts have lots of content (I read them with great interest from somebody “anti” OCS).
    I can’t see lots of content in your posts, I see mainly insults without interest in an open conversation (doogie had this interest). So yeah, although I don’t like anonymous posts, I do judge posts by their content first. Simply the content of your posts is so paper thin that it doesn’t get a good grade in my judgement. And before you picture me as somebody “closing my eyes”: I don’t like paper thin pro OCS posts either, and I did like doogies posts, which were anti-OCS.

    Anyway, thanks for suggesting all these things about me simply based on the fact I wrote I don’t like anonymous posts.
    If you want to give me an answer insulting me or making fun of me or picturing me as a naive being believing everything on OCS (although I did point out I don’t), then do so. In this case it actually would be You proving Me right.

    Have a wonderful day, unknown person, and yes, I will read your future posts and take them into consideration for my opinion


  • @ “wow, breaking news”

    Sorry for typing errors and forgotten sentences. To correct:

    “I do think CS should listen to things written on OCS, and the other way round. ”

    “like yours on one hand or of some people on OCS on the other hand”

    “(even though I have little sympathy for the tone of your posts)”

    And in addition:
    I by the way don’t think of CS as a dark empire either. I just try to stay critical in all directions.
    People on OCS shouldn’t ignore and reject what somebody like you, coming from CS is writing, I agree. I actually donb’t see this happen, as eg Margaret often expresses a different opinion or people reacted in a respectful way to doogies comments, but maybe single people here do what you blame for. I do disagree with them then too.

    But if (IF) you ignore and reject everything written on OCS then I might call you a tiny little bit hypocrite about the things you proclaim in your posts. The truth of lays in the middle (I don’t believe in the evil empire, neither that CS is, not that OCS is (like you suggest); I don’t have enough insight for doing so anyway), so you should also take into consideration things written on OCS. Maybe CS can learn from them (just like the other way round can happen).
    If you don’t ignore and reject them, I’m glad you don’t.

    I don’t have a clear opinion by the way. As said, I don’t have enough insight for that.

    On a more personal note:
    One thing I would personally wish for is more transparency in the sense that an everyday’s (!) official (not like doogie’s) blog talking about what happened at the CSC. That’s a claim I don’t need insight for.
    If it already exists, and I’m talking about a channel seriously talking about what’s happening on every single day (what can be written in 15 minutes on a PC in Thailand, it’s not much effort) and not simply a resuming newsletter, then I would be happy if you could give me the link.

    I personally also critisize the idea of chosing people for the CSC. I think a conference should be open to all members. If it isn’t it only supports the feeling of lacking transparence.

    You say that people here throw dirt. But if you guys at the CSC would be much more open about what is happening, there would be less possibilities for “throwing dirt”. By keeping communication and transparency channels closed and not admitting everybody to a CSC but just chosen people you basically encourage “lies”.

    The easiest to stop the “lies” would just to prove them they are wrong through open communication and transparency. I would love that by the way for the mentioned “puzzle of my opinion”. The thing worrying me about CS is the silence. The discussions I see on OCS are much more “open” than the ones I see on CS, no matter my personal view.

    If I am wrong and it already exists then my apologies and please give me the link. Honestly.

    These are points I support over OCS for example. Are they mean lies? I don’t think so. They are just my personal point of view.

  • @ “wow, breaking news”

    And a last little question (sorry for the three posts, I have difficulties thinking in straight lines ;) ):

    About the anonymous posting and the answer you gave me about it:

    You say posts here are not judged on ther content, but on from WHOM they came.
    So, here’s the question:
    Do you do the asked thing yourself? Do you judge a posts by Kaspar only based on its content and not from the beginning on the fact it is coming from Kaspar (means from whom it is coming)? Do you look at the content of a post by Kaspar in the exact same way than you look at the content of a post by a friend of yours or by Casey?
    As said, do you only judge a post based on its content (a thing you blame people on OCS for not doing) ?
    Do you, when you see a post by Kaspar think “let’s what he says, I’ll consider it”, or do you think “Ah, damn, Kaspar will be posting lies again”?

    I’m interested in your answer. Because if you yourself do not care about the WHO, then I’m honestly pretty impressed.

  • “let’s see what he says”

    is the sentence of course. Crap, sorry for that.

  • Michel83, if you created an account you’d be able to edit your own comments. :)

  • @ Callum

    I know…
    I have an account…
    I just didn’t think of logging in when writing that comment… ;)

  • CouchSurfing is a community supported charitable non-profit organization. We have submitted an application for 501c3 federal non-profit status, and we anticipate attaining this status during the Alaska collective. However, there can be no guarantees. Fundraising strategies must reflect this evolving status.

  • [quote]However, there can be no guarantees. Fundraising strategies must reflect this evolving status.[/quote]
    Seems so:

    This item has expired and is no longer available for viewing.
    Click here to see other listings by CouchSurfing
    Click here to search for other Volunteer Opportunities on the site.

Comments are currently closed.