[Sugar-devel] [SLOB] motion regarding GSoC mentor travel

[Walter Bender]

Background: Google has provided SL with $3000 towards mentor travel to the
October summit. ($3300 - the SFC 10%) although we have yet to receive $1100
of the funds. We have also received $5400 in mentor "stipends" ($6000 - the
SFC 10%). As you may recall, we are sending three people, Devin, Jaskirat,
and Shrivank. Only Jaskirat is traveling internationally, so the best
estimate is that the travel will come in on budget. As we did last year, we
could apply some of the mentor stipend $$ to cover any overruns. (Note we
have already approved a previous motion to approve a travel advance for
Jaskirat to attend the Google Summer of Code mentor summit in October 2018.
[1])

The SFC estimates a cost increase in Jaskirat's ticket of $400-$500 due to
his intention to travel some while in the States (to visit some Sugar Labs
people and his cousin in DC.) Jaskirat is paying for his domestic travel,
but the round trip in and out of SF is apparently less expensive, hence the
need for SLOB approval. IMHO, we should be extending opportunities for
community members whenever possible.

Motion: To approve the additional cost associated with Jaskirat's ticket to
and from the GSoC summit as calculated by the SFC. If for some reason the
total budget for GSoC summit travel exceeds $3000, we can apply Jaskirat's
and my share of the GSoC mentor stipend to cover the overrun.

This is somewhat timely as tickets need to be purchased.

regards.

-walter

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2018-August/055603.html

-- Forwarded message -
From: Brett Smith via RT 
Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [sfconservancy.org #1845] Additional US flight expenditures
for Jaskirat Singh
To: 
Cc: 


On 09/18/2018 12:46 PM, Adam Holt via RT wrote:


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Brett Smith via RT <
approv...@tix.sfconservancy.org> wrote:

> Adam and team,
>
> Jaskirat Singh is planning additional travel in the US after the GSoC
> mentor summit. Some of it is personal,


Hi Brett,

Travel funds for the GSoC mentor summit do not include personal side trips.

Adam,

Yes, to be clear, our travel policy states: “Travelers may seek approval to
book travel itineraries that include extra days for personal reasons, *so
long as the cost of the flight meets the other requirements of this Policy*.”
Additional expense *just* for personal reasons isn’t permitted, and if that
was the case here, I would’ve declined without even asking you. The planned
meetings with other collaborators meant it was at least potentially
project-related, so that’s why I checked.

I’ll work with him to see what he wants to do but I won’t book additional
travel with him unless/until you tell me otherwise.

Thanks for your prompt response,
-- 
Brett Smith


-- 
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 regarding xo-computer icon

[Walter Bender]

The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be
going around  in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative
that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that
Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options.

To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can
change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation
with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that
decision on our own terms or be forced into a change.

Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the xo-computer
icon as follows:
(Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does
the SLOBs want to keep it there?
(A1) The xo-computer icon has been part of Sugar since we first designed
and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it there
until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to change it.
(Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what
outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
- Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify
Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the
program?
- Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
Sugar?
(A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently licensed
under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to use all
of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use of any
trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion.

I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes, the
results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the
motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion.

regards.

-walter

-- Forwarded message --
From: Walter Bender 
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
To: SLOBs 
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


As probably most of you are aware, yesterday one of our community members
unilaterally changed the xo-computer icon in sugar-artwork. The ensuing
discussion about the change is in the github pull request, "Urgent fix
logos", [1]

The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork [2]
and there was concern that we were infringing and consequently downstream
users would also be infringing.

As Sean Daly points out, this is not the first time that the topic has come
up [3, 4]. "In the past, OLPC was amenable to the use of the xo logo in
Sugar, but asked we not use it in marketing materials without a formal
co-branding licensing agreement."

Personally, I think that OLPC was explicit in making the Sugar artwork
available under a GPL licence and that this is hence moot. But I am not
qualified to make that assessment. Consequently, I asked Adam Holt, our SFC
liaison, to raise the issue with the legal team. Tony asked us to consider
the following questions:

1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does
the SLOBs want to keep it there?
2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork:  what
outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
- Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify
Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the
program?
- Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
Sugar?

The answer to the first part of Tony's first question is that the XO logo
was part of Sugar from the very beginning -- before Sugar Labs was split
from OLPC. We've never changed it.

Regarding the second part: does the SLOBs want to keep it there?  is
something we  need to discuss. Personally, I think it serves its purpose
well -- a childcentric interface and it is "iconic" of Sugar. I see no
reason to change it.

Regarding Tony's second question, I would want downstream users to have as
much freedom as possible: to use or not use the XO icon as they choose.
However, I don't see the need to expand beyond the context of Sugar. If
someone downstream wants to use the artwork for some other purpose, that is
not our issue (although I that the GPL license would be the relevant
determinant.)

What do others think?

Note, I think we should defer the discussion of what we would use as
replacement artwork until we resolve the current issue.

regards.

-walter

[1]  https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96
[2]  http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html
[3]  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html
[4] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html

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




-- 
Walter Bender

Re: [Sugar-devel] SLOB motion

[Samson Goddy]

That is the plan, i am already in touch with Mitchel Resnick. There is plan
for Sugar and possible Sugarizer too. I will keep you in touch about the
updates.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:23 PM, James Cameron  wrote:

> I'd like a new version of Scratch integrated with Sugar.
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.netrek.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

[James Cameron]

I'd like a new version of Scratch integrated with Sugar.

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

[Sugar-devel] SLOB motion

[Walter Bender]

I'd like to queue up this motion before our monthly meeting on Friday:

Motion: Allocate $800 towards the expenses associated with Samson Goddy
presenting Sugar at the Scratch Conference in Bordeaux, France in July 2017
(See [1] for details).

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/152VDfUcdcGOHOFBLT3lG15sUFpzBeuBCGiNAGCSOLj4/edit?usp=sharing

regards.

-walter

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

[Dave Crossland]

On 4 June 2016 at 07:36, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> I second the motion and approve it.

On 7 June 2016 at 01:36, Sameer Verma  wrote:
> Aye.

Do these votes count as they were not sent to the SLOBs list?
___
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

[Sameer Verma]

Aye.

Sameer
On Jun 4, 2016 6:36 AM, "Tony Anderson"  wrote:

> 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 
> 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
>
>
___
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

[Walter Bender]

+1 from me as well

(I had reclused myself from voting on the earlier version of this motion
due to a conflict of interest in that I am a potential recipient of the
funds, but since I have said that I will not accept the funds for my
personal use, I think it is OK to vote.)

-walter

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Claudia Urrea  wrote:

> + 1
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Tony Anderson 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Claudia Urrea, PhD
> OLPCA
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>


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

[Claudia Urrea]

+ 1

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

> 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 
> 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
>
>


-- 
Claudia Urrea, PhD
OLPCA
___
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] [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