Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> Done.



Wow! bravo Walter that was quick!!
Sean
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the
>>> monthly SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.
>>
>>
>>
>> ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the
>> meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate
>> but before a vote.
>>
>> Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every
>> single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason
>> isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant
>> about bureaucracy, that's all.
>>
>> Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering
>> system such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing
>> previous decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which
>> could be used to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be
>> more easily listed for governance history.
>>
>
> Nice idea. I could start by numbering the motions listed in [1].
>
>
Done.


> -walter
>
>>
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
> [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>



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

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

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY  wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly
>> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.
>
>
>
> ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the
> meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate
> but before a vote.
>
> Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every
> single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason
> isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant
> about bureaucracy, that's all.
>
> Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering
> system such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing
> previous decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which
> could be used to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be
> more easily listed for governance history.
>

Nice idea. I could start by numbering the motions listed in [1].

-walter

>
>
> Sean
>
>
[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

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

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

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly
> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.



ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the
meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate
but before a vote.

Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every
single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason
isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant
about bureaucracy, that's all.

Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering system
such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing previous
decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which could be
used to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be more easily
listed for governance history.

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

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 18 May 2016 at 11:53, Sean DALY  wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal
>> financial responsibility for the Conservancy account.
>
>
> In my view it's theoretically reasonable, however there is a real risk of
> red tape logjam. It's quite common for orgs to set a reasonable amount
> limit for expenditures not requiring formal votes, to reduce bureaucratic
> delays (i.e. waiting for the next meeting then spending time on it). It's
> also quite common for all such expenses to be accounted for anyway, and for
> the limit to be adjusted up or down per requirements, to better focus on
> the important issues at hand.
>

While it is common to have such a limit, and despite SLOBs apparently
already authorising such a limit for Walter (who with Bernie has a de facto
special position of trust as a co-founder) it seems Conservancy is a higher
authority than SLOBs and requires a board vote for any spending.

Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly
SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.

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

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal
> financial responsibility for the Conservancy account.


In my view it's theoretically reasonable, however there is a real risk of
red tape logjam. It's quite common for orgs to set a reasonable amount
limit for expenditures not requiring formal votes, to reduce bureaucratic
delays (i.e. waiting for the next meeting then spending time on it). It's
also quite common for all such expenses to be accounted for anyway, and for
the limit to be adjusted up or down per requirements, to better focus on
the important issues at hand.

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

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

On 18 May 2016 at 10:05, Walter Bender  wrote:

> for some reason or other, the SFC seems to think that every outlay
> requires explicit approval from the entire board


FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal
financial responsibility for the Conservancy account.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel