Send IAEP mailing list submissions to
iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
iaep-ow...@lists.sugarlabs.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of IAEP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder (Dave Crossland)
2. Re: Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting
(Dave Crossland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:47:55 -0400
From: Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>
To: Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net>
Cc: IAEP SugarLabs <iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org>, sugar-devel
<sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder
Message-ID:
<caeozd0zpjw_sf9_tkwn2zhu82oq75nxbobzfcnjfr_juzgh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 30 June 2016 at 06:56, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote:
I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his
arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he been
paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report to
include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was the
first milestone met (setup) and payment made?
Chris, I would also like to see any and all material you have prepared
for the blog :)
I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 'month'
with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, and ending
balance.
Me too :)
I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.
My objections are:
(1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check and
send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 'donate' option
to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been implemented.
I do not think that SLOB should be bothered with motions about which
methods of donation are permitted, and which are currently
implemented. That is a matter for Conservancy to decide and its Member
Projects should allow for funds to be accepted to their earmarked
funds with any of those methods; and it is up to the project's members
to implement the methods.
(2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as know
this goal has not been set.
I agree that fund-raising activity should have a target amount.
You posted a motion on June 4th:
"to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to
enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or other
means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the Financial
Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will
show progress in donations toward the goal."
This was not seconded.
Lionel then called for motions to be minimised.
I therefore expect to carry out fund raising activities without making
motions to SLOBs for approval, and without a Finance Manager
appointed, since it seems no one at SLOBs is interested in giving
meaningful feedback on either motions about fund raising or about the
FM position.
I will take into account feedback offered to me by other members.
(3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an amount
they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to identify
themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a specfied amount.
A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal for the year, members
should try to donate at least $50 although donations in any amount are
welcome' would be acceptable.
Sounds good!
(4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners or
associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations
available.
Sure
The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable without
clarification.
Cool, when I get there I'll let the community know
According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the Financial
Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed motion.
No, we haven't heard from her. I have now taken the liberty of posting
the 2 motions with my suggestions which she did not review.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:54:15 -0400
From: Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>
To: Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Adam Holt <h...@unleashkids.org>, samson goddy
<samsongo...@hotmail.com>, José Miguel García <logo...@gmail.com>,
Claudia Urrea <callaur...@gmail.com>, Lionel Laske
<lio...@olpc-france.org>, "tony_ander...@usa.net"
<tony_ander...@usa.net>, Tony Anderson <t...@olenepal.org>,
"iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org" <iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting
Message-ID:
<CAEozd0zu4HAgZ7SAEjKcGb2N4=jvsdhj+8idvk3+nvhugfs...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 30 June 2016 at 10:57, Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com> wrote:
P.S. Re clause #2: there may be times when the financial data from the SFC
is not available at a meeting. The first item in the clause allows for
making updates and corrections from the previous meeting's data if it
differs.
The motion I just posted also allows for this.
I strongly suggest this be the starting version at the meeting tomorrow.
Do you need to repost it to the SLOBs list in order for it to be a valid motion?
Confirmation of the accuracy of the previous month's report according to
the SFC
Balance at the beginning of the month preceding the meeting
Expenses during the month
Income received during the month
Balance at the end of the month
How does that work for a meeting like the one tomorrow falling on the
1st of the month; does it mean that the FM is obligated to finalise
the report in the less than 24 hours before the meeting?
3. The Finance Manager arranges for the Conservancy to make any
disbursements authorized by the Board. The Finance Manager
will maintain a 'petty cash' fund of $200 to pay for miscellaneous
expenditures between meetings.
Does that mean that if two requests for funds under $200 occur in 1
month, the 2nd can not be paid until either the next month begins or a
SLOB motion to approve it?
