From glennwmichael at gmail.com  Sun Apr  3 12:30:32 2016
From: glennwmichael at gmail.com (Glenn Michael)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 14:30:32 -0400
Subject: [Board] Square Register
In-Reply-To: <00ed01d18c45$9adf90f0$d09eb2d0$@dangingras.net>
References: <014701d1666b$72b826a0$582873e0$@dangingras.net>
	<245157735.2709965.1459523733694.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
	<00ed01d18c45$9adf90f0$d09eb2d0$@dangingras.net>
Message-ID: <1435AF24-B0C3-48CE-8678-C234C480C60F@gmail.com>

I know nothing about this stuff. I do not even know what questions to ask.  I will defer to the experts. Glenn

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:37 PM, "Dan Gingras" <dan at dangingras.net> wrote:
> 
> Ok, I’m a bit confused.   Intuit POS is PCI certified,  (See: https://security.intuit.com/pci-dss.html)   and so is Square, so I’m not sure why one would require a different level of PCI-DSS than the other.   One thing I think is required is unique ID’s for each user and Square charges $5 for each of those.    Both use our network, so the appropriate level of security should be required of each, which includes :
> PCI DSS includes the following requirements:
> 
> ·         Install and maintain a firewall configuration to protect cardholder data.
> ·         Do not use vendor-supplied defaults for system passwords and other security parameters.
> ·         Protect stored cardholder data.
> ·         Encrypt the transmission of cardholder data across open, public networks.
> ·         Use and regularly update anti-virus software.
> ·         Develop and maintain secure systems and applications.
> ·         Restrict access to cardholder data.
> ·         Assign a unique ID to each person with computer access.
> ·         Restrict physical access to cardholder data.
> ·         Track and monitor all access to network resources and cardholder data.
> ·         Regularly test security systems and processes.
> ·         Maintain a policy that addresses information security.
>  
> Not sure where the two diverge in terms of requirements.
>  
> Dan
>  
>  
> From: Board [mailto:board-bounces at portsmouthyc.org] On Behalf Of stardot at comcast.net
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 11:16 AM
> To: Board of Directors <board at portsmouthyc.org>
> Subject: [Board] Square Register
>  
>  
>  All -
> (I know it is April 1 but this is not an April Fool's prank.) I have been working to set up Square Register and have gone through almost all of the necessary setup. In many ways, I like it much better than QuickBooks POS and I was planning to implement it at Docks In. I have been testing sales using  small amounts of money and that all worked fine, but yesterday I was caught off guard by what may be an important issue. It seems that Square sells things only in unit quantities - you can't sell a fraction of an item. This makes it difficult to sell 14.7 gallons of gas. We can easily sell in units of 1/10 of a gallon, 147 tenth gallons instead of  14.7 gallons, but this means the price per gallon would always be multiples of a dime (18 cents per tenth gallon would  be $1.80 per gallon, 19 cents per tenth gallon would be $1.90 per gallon, etc. and you can't make a price with fractions of a penny). Another option, probably better, would be to sell the whole  gallons at the desired price per gallon and enter any tenths as a separate item. Square says they are working on it, lots of businesses want to hook up a scale or sell in fractions of a pound, but for today a fraction of a unit is not a feature.
>  
> I need some feedback - do you consider this to be a dealbreaker? QuickBooks POS is still fully functional. Rounding the price per gallon up or down a penny or two would not be a big deal, and we don't have so many fuel sales that entering two line items would be a huge hassle, but either way is less than optimal. Please let me know  your thoughts.
> Doyle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160403/1d65c348/attachment.htm>

From wendyclement10 at comcast.net  Sun Apr  3 12:30:06 2016
From: wendyclement10 at comcast.net (Wendyclement10@comcast.net)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 19:30:06 +0100
Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
In-Reply-To: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
References: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
Message-ID: <50FD83FE-CC98-44FB-BDBA-19AA21362B49@comcast.net>

As this is not my level of expertise... I will say option 1.  This just seems like the safest thing to do. 
I agree that we should look into salvage options for the old chains.
Wendy

> On Apr 2, 2016, at 1:16 AM, Dick Blidberg <blidberg at ausi.org> wrote:
> 
> HI All
> 
> Roy & I have been talking with PCMS about the mooring situation and considering what might be done to get the total cost for the year down a bit. First of all we considered what the level of effort was going to be based on their (PMCS) inspections for last year. Geoff relies on the input he gets from his people during the inspection and feels very confident about what they have found.  He has also checked to make sure  that the data that he gets is accurately reflected in the summary documents his administrative people produce and has corrected any incorrect entries.
> 
> Given the experience we had last year and the results of that accident we all feel that there is no way we should do less that required by the results of the inspections last year.  They, Pepperrell Cove Marine Services, must maintain the moorings in a manner that addresses the problems found last year. They cannot, in good conscience, delay required maintenance, suggested by last year's inspections, for a longer period of time unless the inspections this year suggest that the moorings are in better shape than expected.  If that is the case then they will not undertake the suggested maintenance until 2017. As a result he has generated the quote in the yearly maintenance contract which details those costs (Attached) .
> 
> We have looked at two possible options that can be considered to reduce the cost for the year. We have talked with PCMS about these options and they are in agreement that both options are possible. They are summarized in the second and third columns of the second document (attached). The first option (OPT1), column 2, reflects the results of some conversations with Geoff . We all agree that the 5/8" chain is fine for all of the shallower moorings such as those in Pepperrell Cove, Little Harbor, and Fox point. The moorings at the Isles of Shoals on the other hand, might best be served by 3/4" chain due to the deep water of some and the manner in which they are used e.g. multiple boat rafting. The moorings in front to the club should be 3/4" chain due to the high currents and the river traffic that those moorings experience.
> 
> The second option (OPT2), column 3, eliminates the 3/4" chain on the IOS moorings. Although this is not optimum, it is felt to be sufficient.
> 
> Bottom line, we can lower our costs this year to $15,000 without causing too much of a problem. If we want to feel more secure at the IOS then we can put 3/4" chain on the moorings that have to be changed there. But that brings our costs up to $16,828.
> 
> After considering the options Let us know what your thoughts are so we can move forward with the process. We think both of the options are viable and would be acceptable.
> 
> Dick Blidberg, Roy Briscoe
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> <Mooring contract options 2016.docx>
> <PYC Contract.docx>