Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
> the budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
(USD$12,000.00)

On this narrow point, I'd (assume) Translation Community Manager outlay
represents $12,000 + 10% for SFConservancy = $13,200 total, from May 1st
2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-07 2:25 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Karen Sandler 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-06 12:06, Adam Holt wrote:
>>
>> s/he tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they
>>> often take a month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their
>>> system, so the Financial Manager cannot in fact get hard information
>>> about January.  My understanding from SFConservancy is that on
>>> February 10th, we could only get hard info on December's financials,
>>> and even then there's no absolute guarantee, as receipts come in very
>>> late at times.
>>>
>>
> I meant to clarify above that SFConservancy has no possible way provide SL
> fully complete/accurate financial info when receipts are sometimes
> submitted ~90 days late?  What Karen says below, exactly!
>
> In short, the current/proposed Financial Manager job description (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc)
> needs more tuning of its operational mechanics month-by-month and
> quarter-by-quarter, for the reasons Karen laid out.
>
> If in the end SL will benefit from 10+ hours-per-month of professional
> financial consulting/reporting every month, we cannot make an underpaid
> Financial Manager and others' lives impossible, by imposing more accounting
> burdens than is in fact possible within 10
> hours-per-month-or-whatever-is-recommended, such that nothing happens in
> the end (back to square one worst case) if we ask for too much.
>
> PS on a more positive note (!) can someone help me publish SFConservancy's
> latest travel/expense/reimbursement guidelines and requirements directly
> off of https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#For_funding_travel ?  Is
> there a public link somewhere already, or can we make one now, if someone
> has this/these document(s) handy?
>
> On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us
>>> obtain live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed
>>> up-to-date financials until 2 months later!  But what other options
>>> are there?  Should we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in
>>> exchange for recency?
>>>
>>
>> It's great you're contemplating hiring a financial manager - increased
>> engagement from SL in its finances might solve some of the problems from
>> third-parties that are the root cause of delays in update to the books (we
>> cannot help the fact that travelers sometimes take a long time to ask for
>> reimbursement, for example). As Adam indicates, any faster financial info
>> would surely be less precise. As we hear in reports from others, we're the
>> fastest at getting our financial data up to date in the entire industry. We
>> keep books for almost 40 projects that have many transactions, and we're
>> doing it with only a staff of 3 who have a lot of other work too.  A
>> financial manager will be able to track the few transactions that haven't
>> processed in the interim so you have the granularilty when you need it.
>>
>> More realistically, it's worth reiterating that building an annual budget
>> is really what you should focus on.
>
>
I sent an email on April 17 with the Subject SL 2016 Annual Budget and a
draft based on the numbers published by Adam.

Dave made some interesting suggestions and I do agree that there is a need
for financial vision and evaluation (4 to 5 simple indicators of
Community's Financial Health).


> We will track spending against it on an ongoing basis. You currently have
>> a balance of over $80k that has not changed in some time
>
>
Latter on April 21, I attached an updated draft for the Budget including
the financial data of the 2016 approved motions by SLOBs so far.

So, without counting with any more income in the period, and reducing the
budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
(USD$12,000.00) and Walter Conferences Travels (USD$ 3,977.42), the net
asset value comes to ~USD$ 66,000.00.

I also considered the projected yearly fees for the conservancy (truth is I
am not sure how it is calculated) so I did estimate with the simple 4 year
average (USD$ 8,297,33).

Therefore the new estimated asset value would be something around ~USD$
57,600.00

Of course, someone from the SLOBs should confirm the figures.I am attaching
the draft here again.


> - are you contemplating undergoing expenses in a 2 or 3 month period that
>> would need exact amounts on a daily basis? For example, our own books
>> (which are much bigger) are updated at the same rate as SL's and it works
>> great for us as we build our budget and monitor income throughout the year.
>> A Financial manager could also save us time and heartache by vetting travel
>> reimbursement requests against the travel policy.
>>
>> Given the holistic discussion, it's also worth saying that while I (along
>> with everyone else at Conservancy) am a huge supporter of SLs and would be
>> happy for you to stay with us, we take a loss on our fiscal sponsorship
>> work for you. On average, you give back t

[IAEP] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Walter Bender]

At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the motion
submitted by Sebastian Silva to allow the mentors participating in Google
Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see
fit. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.

Background: Every year, Google provides mentoring organizations with a
stipend for the mentors. In our first year of participation in the program,
Sugar Labs mentors agreed to have the stipend directed to the Sugar Labs
general funds. We have followed the same procedure in subsequent years.
This year, however, several mentors asked if they could have access to the
stipends (which are allocated per student internship). We discussed this at
the meeting and agreed that it would be appropriate to offer these funds as
compensation and thanks to the mentors for their time and expertise (there
were no objections raised). We need to vote on this however, since the
funds are given to the mentoring organization, not the individual mentors.

Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation for
a vote on the following motion. (Note that since I am a mentor, I think I
must recuse myself from the vote.)

Motion: to allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.

regards.

-walter

[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [SLOB] Yoruba i18n motion

[Walter Bender]

At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the motion
submitted by Chris Leonard to fund a program for translation of Sugar into
Yoruba, one of the three main languages spoken in Nigeria. I second the
motion and bring it to you in an email vote.

Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation for
a vote on the following motion.

Motion: To fund a program to initiate the translation of Sugar into Yoruba.
The specific milestones and costs are detailed below. A description of the
rationale for the project is found at [2]. The work would be led by Samson
Goddy and reviewed by Chris Leonard, in his role as Translation Community
Manager.

This proposal is for the translation of Sugar user interface and
certain Sugar Activities into the Yoruba language (ISO-639 code - yo).

Milestone 1 - The initial payment of $350 USD will cover startup costs
(internet connection fees, localizer recruitment/training, etc.).
Payment is to be made upon successful completion of contractual
arrangements with fiscal sponsor (SFC).

Milestone 2 - Glucose - Payable upon completion and upload to Pootle
of the PO files for sugar, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, OLPC_switch_desktop
will be for $1,350 USD. Included in this milestone is a $300 USD
project management fee, in addition to fees of approximately 40
cents/word for the projects included in this milestone.  The uploaded
files must pass all "critical" error checks (as flagged by the Pootle
software) and be approved by the Sugar Labs Translation Community
Manager, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

Milestone 2 must be completed prior to Milestone 3.

Milestone 3 - Fructose - Payable upon completion and upload of the PO
files for Calculate, Chat, ImageViewer, Jukebox, Log, Paint, Pippy,
Portfolio, Read, ReadETexts, Record, Speak, Terminal, TurtleArt, Web,
Write will be for $2,300 USD. Included in this milestone is a $675 USD
project management fee, in addition to fees of approximately 40
cents/word for the projects included in this milestone.  The uploaded
files must pass all "critical" error checks (as flagged by the Pootle
software) and be approved by the Sugar Labs Translation Community
Manager, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

Total anticipated costs for all three milestone payments will be $4,000 USD.

All projects are hosted on the Sugar Labs Pootle server at

http://translate.sugarlabs.org/yo/

Translation may be performed off-line with subsequent upload to the
Pootle server.

regards,

-walter

[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
[2]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gtqpEOmDxxUYGdpbbBMlrPLQ-T6_OVnqdyAPJpaeORw/edit?usp=sharing

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [SLOB] Finance Manager Motions

[Walter Bender]

As per the discussion at today's Sugar Labs oversight meeting [1], we
agreed that the first 2 motions regarding the Finance Manager position [2]
need more work before they are ready for a vote. In rereading Motions 3 and
4, they don't really make sense until we resolve the first two motions. So
I suggest that everyone contribute to the document over the next few days
to bring it into shape suitable for a vote.

regards,

-walter

[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
[2]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [SLOB] meeting summary (one of many)

[Walter Bender]

The minutes from today's meeting can be found at [1]. While we discussed
all 7 topics on the agenda, since we did not have a quorum of board
members, we did not vote on any of the motions. I will send a separate
email for each motion discussed so that we can vote by email.

* Motion to pay for laboratoriosazucar.org domain
* 4 motions to create Treasurer position
* Motion to do Yoruba i18n
* Proposal to make GSoC mentor payments to the mentors.
* Discussion of Google RISE grant
* Motion to adopt our Vision proposal for 2016

regards.

-walter

1. https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Karen Sandler 
wrote:

> On 2016-05-06 12:06, Adam Holt wrote:
>
> s/he tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they
>> often take a month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their
>> system, so the Financial Manager cannot in fact get hard information
>> about January.  My understanding from SFConservancy is that on
>> February 10th, we could only get hard info on December's financials,
>> and even then there's no absolute guarantee, as receipts come in very
>> late at times.
>>
>
I meant to clarify above that SFConservancy has no possible way provide SL
fully complete/accurate financial info when receipts are sometimes
submitted ~90 days late?  What Karen says below, exactly!

In short, the current/proposed Financial Manager job description (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc)
needs more tuning of its operational mechanics month-by-month and
quarter-by-quarter, for the reasons Karen laid out.

If in the end SL will benefit from 10+ hours-per-month of professional
financial consulting/reporting every month, we cannot make an underpaid
Financial Manager and others' lives impossible, by imposing more accounting
burdens than is in fact possible within 10
hours-per-month-or-whatever-is-recommended, such that nothing happens in
the end (back to square one worst case) if we ask for too much.

PS on a more positive note (!) can someone help me publish SFConservancy's
latest travel/expense/reimbursement guidelines and requirements directly
off of https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#For_funding_travel ?  Is there
a public link somewhere already, or can we make one now, if someone has
this/these document(s) handy?

On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us
>> obtain live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed
>> up-to-date financials until 2 months later!  But what other options
>> are there?  Should we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in
>> exchange for recency?
>>
>
> It's great you're contemplating hiring a financial manager - increased
> engagement from SL in its finances might solve some of the problems from
> third-parties that are the root cause of delays in update to the books (we
> cannot help the fact that travelers sometimes take a long time to ask for
> reimbursement, for example). As Adam indicates, any faster financial info
> would surely be less precise. As we hear in reports from others, we're the
> fastest at getting our financial data up to date in the entire industry. We
> keep books for almost 40 projects that have many transactions, and we're
> doing it with only a staff of 3 who have a lot of other work too.  A
> financial manager will be able to track the few transactions that haven't
> processed in the interim so you have the granularilty when you need it.
>
> More realistically, it's worth reiterating that building an annual budget
> is really what you should focus on. We will track spending against it on an
> ongoing basis. You currently have a balance of over $80k that has not
> changed in some time - are you contemplating undergoing expenses in a 2 or
> 3 month period that would need exact amounts on a daily basis? For example,
> our own books (which are much bigger) are updated at the same rate as SL's
> and it works great for us as we build our budget and monitor income
> throughout the year. A Financial manager could also save us time and
> heartache by vetting travel reimbursement requests against the travel
> policy.
>
> Given the holistic discussion, it's also worth saying that while I (along
> with everyone else at Conservancy) am a huge supporter of SLs and would be
> happy for you to stay with us, we take a loss on our fiscal sponsorship
> work for you. On average, you give back to us $36/week for *all* the
> services we provide to you. That's less than $2000 per year when we must
> pay our auditors $12k alone.
>
> As always you should definitely feel free to look for another nonprofit
> home. We deliberately designed our termination provisions to be very easy
> to leave. As I said, we're unaware of anyone doing it faster (and we hear
> that most are far slower in updating books) but we'd have no problem
> helping you to transition to another org.
>
> I don't always follow this list closely, but I'm happy to set up a call or
> IRC chat any time.
>
> karen
>
>
> Karen M. Sandler
> Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
> __
> Become a Supporter today! http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>
> --
> 
> 
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> http://unleashkids.org !
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Adam

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, I've added them as comments in the
doc to help close them out

On 6 May 2016 at 12:06, Adam Holt  wrote:
> The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on
> within
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
> is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
> better understood:
>
> - Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
> not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential
> monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month or
> what?
>
> - The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's
> life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
> financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
> advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
> have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If s/he
> is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to
> be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled
> the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week
> after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing she
> can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if s/he
> tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they often take a
> month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their system, so the Financial
> Manager cannot in fact get hard information about January.  My understanding
> from SFConservancy is that on February 10th, we could only get hard info on
> December's financials, and even then there's no absolute guarantee, as
> receipts come in very late at times.
>
> On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us obtain
> live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed up-to-date
> financials until 2 months later!  But what other options are there?  Should
> we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in exchange for recency?  And
> if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months
> every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of the
> Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the best
> of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of expenses/income
> and balance on the last day of each month?
>
> - Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these
> 2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment of
> another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per 6-month
> period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired immediately for
> missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2 years?  If so, we
> need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the Financial Manager
> immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other, then we should say
> that more explicitly.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>>> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my
>>> > motions
>>> > receive a majority vote.
>>>
>>> I just checked
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
>>> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
>>> as she says,
>>>
>>> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
>>> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion.
>>>
>>> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.
>>>
>>> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
>>> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
>>> month?)
>>>
>>> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
>>> within May :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>> I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion
>> 1, I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no
>> evidence that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a
>> shot. Re Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real
>> problem and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold
>> spending authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example,
>> Bernie, as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally approved
>> the request for the domain name payment. He already has that authority.) I
>> am fine with the other two motions as written.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on
within
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
better understood:

- Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential
monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month or
what?

- The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's
life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If s/he
is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to
be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled
the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week
after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing she
can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if s/he
tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they often take a
month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their system, so the Financial
Manager cannot in fact get hard information about January.  My
understanding from SFConservancy is that on February 10th, we could only
get hard info on December's financials, and even then there's no absolute
guarantee, as receipts come in very late at times.

On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us obtain
live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed up-to-date
financials until 2 months later!  But what other options are there?  Should
we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in exchange for recency?  And
if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months
every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of
the Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the
best of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of
expenses/income and balance on the last day of each month?

- Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these
2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment
of another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per
6-month period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired
immediately for missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2
years?  If so, we need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the
Financial Manager immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other,
then we should say that more explicitly.



On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my motions
>> > receive a majority vote.
>>
>> I just checked
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
>> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
>> as she says,
>>
>> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
>> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion.
>>
>> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.
>>
>> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
>> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
>> month?)
>>
>> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
>> within May :)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>>
>
> I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion
> 1, I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no
> evidence that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a
> shot. Re Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real
> problem and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold
> spending authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example,
> Bernie, as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally
> approved the request for the domain name payment. He already has that
> authority.) I am fine with the other two motions as written.
>
> -walter
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my motions
> > receive a majority vote.
>
> I just checked
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
> as she says,
>
> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion.
>
> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.
>
> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
> month?)
>
> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
> within May :)
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>

I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion 1,
I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no evidence
that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a shot. Re
Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real problem
and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold spending
authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example, Bernie,
as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally approved the
request for the domain name payment. He already has that authority.) I am
fine with the other two motions as written.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
> I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my motions
> receive a majority vote.

I just checked 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
as she says,

> I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
> discussed. They are an important part of the motion.

So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.

However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
month?)

If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
within May :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi...
A quick update on Ed (Bigenho)... He got his pacemaker last night and might get 
to go home this PM.

 I will be at the hospital all day and will miss the SLOB meeting. I am hoping 
all the differences have been ironed out and that my motions receive a majority 
vote.

I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been 
discussed. They are an important part of the motion.

Caryl



Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Walter Bender  wrote:
> 
> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
> 
> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
> 
> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by CJL 
> [1]);
> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let 
> mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009 to 
> pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not revisited 
> this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has mentioned that 
> the money would make a big difference. It seems we could accommodate 
> individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or not they keep 
> the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should discuss it.
> 
> regards.
> 
> -walter
> 
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Sugar Digest 2016-05-04

[Lionel Laské]

>
>
> We had many more quality proposals than slots. I'd like thank everyone who
> applied this year and hope that even if you were not among the selected
> projects, you will continue to contribute to the Sugar Labs community.
>

+1
On Sugarizer, I would like to specifically mention the work of Shirsh Zibbu
on Moon Activity and the work of Vishal Batchu on Speak Activity. Both had
done a prototype almost ready to be deployed.
So I plan to integrate both activities in the next Sugarizer version. If
they are agree to help, I will be please to work with them on that in
coming weeks.

 Lionel.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep