I agree that the July meeting was much more effective. Motions were
made, seconded, discussed and voted yea-nay in an orderly way. I hope
this allays Dave Crossland and other member's mistrust of the Board.
On 1 July 2016 at 07:06, Tony Anderson wrote:
We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes by
email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).
I've heard that before, and this seems proven sure to fail. But I
don't think I can make the case for improving the boards procedure any
more strongly.
However, I was struck by the total failure of the Board to address the
business of Sugar Labs.
In summary, more than a Finance Manager, we need a budget. More than
defining a Finance Manager position, we need one (note the position has
been available to be filled since before I joined the Board). We need
reporting on Sugar Labs business at the meeting (money, translation
community, ongoing projects such as GSOC, and so on).
*Monthly Reports
Translation Community Manager
* In the April meeting, the Board appointed Chris Leonard as Translation
Community Manager. Adam Holt modified the job description from this:
Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the community on
the status of the translations program.
to this:
* Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the
community and to the public on the status of the translations
program, preferably by blogging informally (blog posts can be any
length) to http://planet.sugarlabs.org using plain language that is
understandable to almost all.
* Report every 4 months on tactical/strategic/financial choices;
reports can be of any length and should be posted/archived together
to a unique URL (linked from
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Translation-Community_Manager) one
month prior to the completion of each 4-month cycle, mentioning:
o What actually happened over current 4-month cycle and/or since
the last report, including community/financial summaries
(absolutely fine and no shame at all if actions were different
from prior cycle's projections: we learn by doing or we don't
learn at all!)
o What can and should happen over the coming 4-month cycle?
Community workflows are never 100% rational: how do we
tactically nurture continuous improvement?
o Long-term strategic/impact recommendations on an annual basis.
Or optionally more often, if he/she is so inclined.
He apparently was concerned that the Board be informed of the current
status of the translations program.
However, there was no such report for the May meeting, the June meeting
or the July meeting. Presumably, the August meeting will see our first
report - the 4 months report.
In May the Board approved the Yoruba I18n Project committing $4000 from
the TripAdvisor Grant. The motion included:
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).
No report was made on the progress of this project in either the June or
July meetings. As a Board member, I have no idea whether this milestone
has been met.
*Finance Manager*
At this July meeting, the Board passed a motion regarding a Finance
Manager. My concerns here are both procedural and substantive.
It turned out that the motion moved by the Chair was one proposed by
email from Adam Holt at 8pm UTC on July 1, one-hour before the meeting.
It has substantial differences from the version made available to the
Board by Caryl Bigenho on June 30. According to the log of the meeting,
the text was shown at 19:21 and the motion was approved at 19:31. In
those ten minutes, the discussion showed that members of the Board had
substantial reservations but voted in favor essentially to get it off
the table (never a good reason for action).
Note: this meeting did not have a report on our finances - unless you
want to count Adam's report (see following).
*Adam's report on Sugar Labs finances:*
On the substantive side, Adam offered his model of a Financial Manager's
report. [I hope we can improve on this model.]
This report shows a balance (July 1, 2016) of $ -83,198.92. It is shown
as a liability since the reporting is from SFC's perspective.
It then has a section labeled: UNPAID INVOICES as of 1 JULY 2016.
This section has six items, two for accounts receivable and four for
accounts payable. It is not clear which, if any, of these represents an
unpaid invoice.
The next, very long section, is labeled: INCOME/EXPENSES BY PROGRAM
ACTIVITY as of 1 JULY 2016:
This seems to be a list of transactions recorded by SFC back to 2012 (I
assume from when SL entered into a relationship with it). It includes
both expenses and income items. The list is separated into