2016-06-17 23:29 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>: > (Apologies for the empty sent earlier) > > On 16 June 2016 at 23:30, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> >> On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>: >>> >>>> On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application >>>> becomes the >>>> > treasurer for those funds. >>>> >>>> Fair enough :) I am merely observing what I see as current practice >>>> with the Trip Advisor grant :) >>>> >>>> > What should happen is a sales cycle: if there is >>>> > interest, the SLOBs should be in the loop so they can assist with >>>> > face-to-face meetings, followup documents, and Adam/SFC liaison >>>> issues. >>>> >>> >>> This is probably the key point to ensure funds actually get to the >>> active members. It will require 100% transparency of grants documents >>> >> > What does "100% transparency of grants documents" mean concretely? > > I can suggest we ensure all grant final document drafts and final copies > are on the wiki/website, and Project Instigators keep the community > informed of relevant updates. > What else should be done? >
I guess publishing all grants main document/contract would be enough. > > and SCF management issues. > > > What does "100% transparency of Conservancy management issues" mean > concretely? > > Conservancy is mostly staffed by lawyers, who wish to mostly communicate > under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege > which requires not having their emails be public or disclosed to anyone but > the specifically addressed and intended recipients, so they do not > participate much on these public lists. > > I think Adam is doing a good job of conveying the important information as > the single point of contact between SL and Conservancy. > > What else do you want him to do differently? > > (Conservancy asks everyone to refer to them as Conservancy, not "SFC", > because they can be confused with SFLC that way.) > > >> > Document signings involving Walter require prior SFC review. In my view, >>>> > disbursal of funds from a successful grant should be managed by >>>> SFC/SLOBs >>>> > (perhaps primarily in the role of a Finance Manager or Treasurer), as >>>> per >>>> > Gould or TripAdvisor. >>>> >>>> Please could you clarify why Walter (or any other SLOB) would >>>> specifically need to be signing documents; I understand that that >>>> Conservancy signs the documents, because legally Conservancy is the >>>> party to them and neither SLOBs nor Members are agents of Conservancy >>>> and lack signing authority. >>> >>> >>>> Conversely, I don't see why SLOBS or Conservancy would be involved in >>>> the management of a project; they only and merely approve the funding, >>>> and until a Financial Manager is in place, this is done by regular >>>> motion. >>>> >>>> >>> What is proposed in the new "by funds structure" is to keep a Project >>> Leader per Project as the Treasurer of that Project's fund. For general >>> purpose expenses SL already have the SLOBs who act as Treasurers of the >>> General Funds fund. >>> >>> Project Leaders-Treasurers should be encouraged to present time-cycle >>> required Budgets to the SL Funding/Grants Committee. >>> >>> Each Project Leader may approve or not an specific grant or grant >>> percentage to get into his/her Project Fund for N periods of time. By >>> approving the incoming of funds into the project, the Project Leader shall >>> agree to make his/her best effort to deliver the grant's desired results on >>> each time cycle as well as of course to share the results openly. >>> >> > Sounds good to me! :) > > >> That said and according to current SLOBs requirements, SLOBs approval >>> will get a long tale as according to current motions system it requires >>> that (A) each disbursement motion gets to be seconded by one SLOB + (B) the >>> motion gets 4 affirmative votes. >>> >> > I agree that this is a problem; and that is why I proposed motions that > would structure SLOB meetings in a way that increases their effectiveness. > > Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D > > -- > Cheers > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Laura V. I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org IRC kaametza Happy Learning!
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep