Re: [Sugar-devel] Who is approving ASLO activities?

[Sebastian Silva]

Such a pity. I have editor access. It would be useful if the system
alerted of new additions.

There is an update queue:

Calculate 43

Extensions  383 days
Level Tool 2

Extensions  383 days
Get Internet Archive Books 8

Extensions  132 days
View Slides 15

Extensions  132 days
FreeFromMalaria 5

Extensions  129 days
GTranslator 2

Extensions  129 days
Simulate 2

Extensions  126 days
VncLauncher 8

Extensions  122 days
Bibliography 5

Extensions  15 minutes


And a Nominated queue:
Kunfu 1

Extensions  622 days
1 
Extensions  598 days
KA View 1

Extensions  383 days
New Paint Activity 1

Extensions  327 days
Piensa y Escribe 1

Extensions  327 days
CErminal 1

Extensions  203 days
Simulate 2

Extensions  126 days
GeoTonky 1

Extensions  92 days 
Safari Activity 1

Extensions  52 days



I don't remember how I got access a couple of years ago when I needed it
to publish the activities we created with the kids in Colombia.

I'll publish yours and try to review the queue asap. I think an
`administrator` needs to give editor access if somebody is interested in
helping. Probably Walter, Dirakx and Alsroot have the required
privileges to grant to others.

Regards,
Sebastian

El 04/06/16 a las 23:39, sam@sam.today escribió:
> Hi All,
>
> So I was updating my activity [1] and uploading the v5 bundle.  I
> noticed that the only version publicly available was v2 (from ~2 years
> ago).  Versions 3 and 4 never made it to the public site :(
>
> Is anybody actively reviewing the activities?  I don't want my bundle
> in the sandbox forever.
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
> [1]
>  http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/developers/versions/validate/32243
> [1] https://github.com/samdroid-apps/bibliography-activity/releases/tag/v5
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Who is approving ASLO activities?

[Dave Crossland]

On 4 June 2016 at 22:39,  wrote:

> Is anybody actively reviewing the activities?


I have just asked for my account to be upgraded to admin status so that I
can find out who the other admin accounts are and check the validation
queue. I suggest you do the same :)
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

[Sugar-devel] Who is approving ASLO activities?

[sam]

Hi All,

So I was updating my activity [1] and uploading the v5 bundle.  I 
noticed that the only version publicly available was v2 (from ~2 years 
ago).  Versions 3 and 4 never made it to the public site :(


Is anybody actively reviewing the activities?  I don't want my bundle 
in the sandbox forever.


Thanks,
Sam

[1]  
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/developers/versions/validate/32243
[1] 
https://github.com/samdroid-apps/bibliography-activity/releases/tag/v5
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Dave Crossland]

Thanks Tony! I've fixed a typo and posted it.

On 4 June 2016 at 11:52, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Simply in repetition, passing a motion is not a goal.
>
> The motion is:
>
> Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar
> Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of
> 2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are
> involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not
> paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who
> donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The
> donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as
> low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from
> members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600
> from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename,
> subject to SLOB approval.
>
> Perhaps something like the following:
>
> Motion: Sugar Labs will 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 intiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will show
> progress
> in donations toward the goal.
>
> Tony
>
> Motion: Sugar Labs
> Tony
>
>
> On 06/04/2016 07:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 07:33, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
>>
>>
> If the donation is voluntary, much of the verbiage is not needed.
>>
>
> The verbiage is needed to address the concerns of other board members that
> it is indeed voluntary :)
>
>
>> I am particularly  concerned about asking for a donation and that the
>> donor justify the amount of the donation based on income.
>>
>
> Great! Please suggest changes to the text, so that if the motion fails, a
> new motion can be posted with language that you are happy with.
>
> The draft text has been available since May 12 and I have made multiple
> requests for such suggestions. Here is the link:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit
>
>
>> I have no problem with a request for donation with a goal for the total
>> amount needed for some goal (e.g. $4000 for operating expenses).
>>
>
> Cool!
>
>
>> We need a simple on-line method for donations. Sending a letter with a
>> check to the Software Conservancy seems a bit behind current practice.
>>
>
> I agree, but the motion says nothing about how donations will be made, so
> that should not prevent the motion from passing.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
>
>


-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Tony Anderson]

Dave,

Simply in repetition, passing a motion is not a goal.

The motion is:

Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active 
Sugar Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar 
year of 2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why 
they are involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no 
penalty for not paying a membership or not providing a statement; by 
default members who donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in 
to be recognised. The donation requested will be $12 USD from members 
who self-identify as low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general 
members; $120 from members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on 
the website; and $600 from members who can (privately if they wish) 
submit a release codename, subject to SLOB approval.


Perhaps something like the following:

Motion: Sugar Labs will 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 intiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will 
show progress

in donations toward the goal.

Tony

Motion: Sugar Labs
Tony

On 06/04/2016 07:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:


Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 07:33, Tony Anderson > wrote:



If the donation is voluntary, much of the verbiage is not needed.


The verbiage is needed to address the concerns of other board members 
that it is indeed voluntary :)


I am particularly  concerned about asking for a donation and that
the donor justify the amount of the donation based on income.


Great! Please suggest changes to the text, so that if the motion 
fails, a new motion can be posted with language that you are happy with.


The draft text has been available since May 12 and I have made 
multiple requests for such suggestions. Here is the link:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit

I have no problem with a request for donation with a goal for the
total amount needed for some goal (e.g. $4000 for operating
expenses).


Cool!

We need a simple on-line method for donations. Sending a letter
with a check to the Software Conservancy seems a bit behind
current practice.


I agree, but the motion says nothing about how donations will be made, 
so that should not prevent the motion from passing.


--
Cheers
Dave


___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 07:33, Tony Anderson  wrote:

>
>
If the donation is voluntary, much of the verbiage is not needed.
>

The verbiage is needed to address the concerns of other board members that
it is indeed voluntary :)


> I am particularly  concerned about asking for a donation and that the
> donor justify the amount of the donation based on income.
>

Great! Please suggest changes to the text, so that if the motion fails, a
new motion can be posted with language that you are happy with.

The draft text has been available since May 12 and I have made multiple
requests for such suggestions. Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit


> I have no problem with a request for donation with a goal for the total
> amount needed for some goal (e.g. $4000 for operating expenses).
>

Cool!


> We need a simple on-line method for donations. Sending a letter with a
> check to the Software Conservancy seems a bit behind current practice.
>

I agree, but the motion says nothing about how donations will be made, so
that should not prevent the motion from passing.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 07:48, Adam Holt  wrote:

> As this is a very thoughtful proposal, I contacted SFConservancy's general
> counsel to verify it is legal given 501(c)3 non-profit laws can be strict,
> and he emphasized 2 things:
>
> (1) no tangible benefits may be offered in return for a donation
> (otherwise it is not a donation, by law!)
>
> (2) if such transactions were ever to become quasi-mandatory (similar to
> membership dues in many other organizations) he would strongly prefer we
> not use the word "Member" and rather use terminology like "Patron"
> (commonly-used word in charitable circles, and doesn't imply explicit
> benefits), "Lab Assistants," or "Sugar Labs Official Patrons" (SLOPs, not
> my choice!), or "Sweet Teeth," etc, with a fun logo (that fits in with the
> existing "Sugar Labs" brand).
>

Thanks for checking in with Conservancy on this :)

Fortunately no benefits in the motion are tangible, and no transactions are
mandatory.


> Finally while I'm not at all against this very thoughtful proposal going
> forward increasingly seriously, there is a *Ton* of overhead to managing
> $12 donations,


Adam, I don't understand your assertion at all!

I imagine that when someone sends $12 via PayPal, then Paypal automatically
takes its fee and deposits the remainder in the Conservancy account; then
Conservancy is obliged to perform the light and simple task of transferring
10% of that to their account and 90% to their SL ear-marked account, which
they do with ledger-cli, which they are familiar with. I imagine that
Conservancy staff are familiar with performing this task on a weekly basis,
if not more frequently. I do not think this will be a burden. Have any
Conservancy staff expressed that this will be a burden? If it was a burden,
they are earning their 10%, so I would see no reason to not to place that
burden on them, if there was one, which there isn't.

Please list all the management tasks you think are associated with a $12
donation to be performed by anyone.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (1 of 2) GSoC Stipends

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> I second the motion and approve it.
>

I hope we all work together to find a way to compromise, but in any case my
opinion is already well-known, as stated a month ago:

Mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently recognized, just like the
Mentoring organization is insufficiently recognized.

My personal belief is that *both* need to be recognized far more, likely
starting equally with a 50/50 split or some such/similar distribution of
funds, inspired by Lionel Laske's thoughtful articulation of the many
social infrastructure / accounting infrastructure / mentoring
infrastructure / constructionist infrastructure investments OLPC France has
very successfully achieved.  Among many other organizational
infrastructures (technology and non-technology community tools)
backstopping the lives of volunteer-community-hackers-of-all-kind
increasingly far easier, as we can do too!  Underlying a much stronger
future for all~

Tony
>
>
> On 06/04/2016 03:02 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>
> We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
> Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
> then we can bring it up for a vote by email.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
> Motion regarding GSoC mentoring stipends
>
> Motion: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all GSoC
> mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC Admin (for
> example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a mentor, their
> share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without further motions to
> approve the spending. The share is calculated from the total awarded for
> the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar Labs income is donated to
> Software Freedom Conservancy for organisational services), minus 5%
> (retained for Sugar Labs General Funds),  divided by the number of mentors
> for the project. For example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at
> $500, the total revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for
> Sugar Labs is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor.
>
> 
>
> Note that an earlier version of this motion failed:
>
> Failed Motion
>
> Motion: To allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
> disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.
>
> Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018130.html
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing 
> listSugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> --
> 
> 
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> http://unleashkids.org !
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Adam Holt]

As this is a very thoughtful proposal, I contacted SFConservancy's general
counsel to verify it is legal given 501(c)3 non-profit laws can be strict,
and he emphasized 2 things:

(1) no tangible benefits may be offered in return for a donation (otherwise
it is not a donation, by law!)

(2) if such transactions were ever to become quasi-mandatory (similar to
membership dues in many other organizations) he would strongly prefer we
not use the word "Member" and rather use terminology like "Patron"
(commonly-used word in charitable circles, and doesn't imply explicit
benefits), "Lab Assistants," or "Sugar Labs Official Patrons" (SLOPs, not
my choice!), or "Sweet Teeth," etc, with a fun logo (that fits in with the
existing "Sugar Labs" brand).

Finally while I'm not at all against this very thoughtful proposal going
forward increasingly seriously, there is a *Ton* of overhead to managing
$12 donations, and I'm wondering how exactly this will be managed?  So if a
competent Donations/Financial Manager (or fully-outsourced mechanism
perhaps?) is tightly drawn up, that does not place burdensome obligations
on SFC and other magical / non-existent financial/operations people we've
simply not identified yet, then I personally would be much more likely to
vote for such a proposal -- if it based on substance rather than wishful
thinking.

In short: if legit, clean operational mechanics have (IN FACT) been
carefully designed.  Or are on a road to come together and inspire the
confidence of all.  Rather than (worst case!) punting management of
microdonations / microreporting / micro-thank-you-letters (etc) to SFC's
forthcoming the PayPal donation button they are trying to create for Sugar
Labs in the coming weeks hopefully, which is Very Far from a complete
answer.  Possibly someone out there knows a fully managed/appropriate
solution similar to *gofundme.com * that reduces
operational complexity, rather than increasing operational complexity in
all our lives?


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
> Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
> then we can bring it up for a vote by email.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> Motion to request a membership donation
>
> Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar
> Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of
> 2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are
> involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not
> paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who
> donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The
> donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as
> low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from
> members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600
> from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename,
> subject to SLOB approval.
>
> 
>
> Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
> A sample letter of solicitation of funds can be found at [2]
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018401.html
> [2]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit?usp=sharing
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>


-- 
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (1 of 2) GSoC Stipends

[Tony Anderson]

I second the motion and approve it.

Tony

On 06/04/2016 03:02 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's 
meeting. Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds 
the motion, then we can bring it up for a vote by email.


regards.

-walter


Motion regarding GSoC mentoring stipends

Motion: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all 
GSoC mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC 
Admin (for example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a 
mentor, their share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without 
further motions to approve the spending. The share is calculated from 
the total awarded for the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar 
Labs income is donated to Software Freedom Conservancy for 
organisational services), minus 5% (retained for Sugar Labs General 
Funds),  divided by the number of mentors for the project. For 
example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at $500, the total 
revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for Sugar Labs 
is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor.




Note that an earlier version of this motion failed:

Failed Motion

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


Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018130.html
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org


___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Walter

I hate to be a 'stick in the mud', but I have concerns about this 
motion. If the donation is voluntary, much of the verbiage is not 
needed. I am particularly
concerned about asking for a donation and that the donor justify the 
amount of the donation based on income. I have no problem with a request 
for
donation with a goal for the total amount needed for some goal (e.g. 
$4000 for operating expenses).


We need a simple on-line method for donations. Sending a letter with a 
check to the Software Conservancy seems a bit behind current practice.


Tony

On 06/04/2016 03:03 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's 
meeting. Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds 
the motion, then we can bring it up for a vote by email.


regards.

-walter

Motion to request a membership donation

Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active 
Sugar Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar 
year of 2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why 
they are involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no 
penalty for not paying a membership or not providing a statement; by 
default members who donate will be kept private, and requested to 
opt-in to be recognised. The donation requested will be $12 USD from 
members who self-identify as low-income (such as students); $36 USD 
from general members; $120 from members who can opt-in to be placed 
prominently on the website; and $600 from members who can (privately 
if they wish) submit a release codename, subject to SLOB approval.




Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
A sample letter of solicitation of funds can be found at [2]

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018401.html
[2] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit?usp=sharing


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



___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

[Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Walter Bender]

We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
then we can bring it up for a vote by email.

regards.

-walter

Motion to request a membership donation

Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar
Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of
2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are
involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not
paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who
donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The
donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as
low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from
members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600
from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename,
subject to SLOB approval.



Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
A sample letter of solicitation of funds can be found at [2]

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018401.html
[2]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit?usp=sharing

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

___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

[Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (1 of 2) GSoC Stipends

[Walter Bender]

We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
then we can bring it up for a vote by email.

regards.

-walter


Motion regarding GSoC mentoring stipends

Motion: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all GSoC
mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC Admin (for
example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a mentor, their
share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without further motions to
approve the spending. The share is calculated from the total awarded for
the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar Labs income is donated to
Software Freedom Conservancy for organisational services), minus 5%
(retained for Sugar Labs General Funds),  divided by the number of mentors
for the project. For example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at
$500, the total revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for
Sugar Labs is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor.



Note that an earlier version of this motion failed:

Failed Motion

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

Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018130.html
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel