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

Hi Caryl! On 12 May 2016 at 11:08, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi > > On 12 May 2016 at 10:51, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > >> Dues are a bad idea! >> Sorry folks >> > > Please could you explain why you think this? > I'm keen to understand your concern :) --

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

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY wrote: >> >> Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers". > > > Well, there's now a paid Translatoins Manager Yes there is and I am

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

On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY wrote: > Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers". > Well, there's now a paid Translatoins Manager ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

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

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Sam Parkinson wrote: > Us volunteers write code, make releases, do user testing, etc. Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers". Dues are how many if not most normally functioning nonprofits operate. I am

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

Hi On 12 May 2016 at 10:51, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Dues are a bad idea! > Sorry folks > Please could you explain why you think this? -- Cheers Dave ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

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

Dues are a bad idea! Sorry folks Caryl Sent from my iPhone > On May 12, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > >> On 11 May 2016 at 22:28, Sam Parkinson wrote: >> Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free >> Software

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

On 11 May 2016 at 22:28, Sam Parkinson wrote: > Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free > Software orgs do? GNOME doesn't seem to. > Its very common for clubs/nonprofits to do this. FSF, Conservancy, TUG, UKTUG run membership programs,

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

+ 1 to Sam P. Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:28:23 +1000 From: sam.parkins...@gmail.com To: la...@somosazucar.org CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; d...@lab6.com Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting

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

I'm not a big fan of this idea. The SLOBs already seem to have some capital. But they seem to be scared to spend it. How much arguing have we done over the translation co-ordinator position? Something like a translation position would be great, but nobody has seemed to actually do anything

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

2016-05-12 2:08 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > > On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas wrote: > >> there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among >> activities/teams/projects etc. > > > I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led

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

On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas wrote: > there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among > activities/teams/projects etc. I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly to further income, to grow the project.

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

2016-05-12 2:03 GMT+08:00 Chris Leonard : > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > > On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas wrote: > >> > >> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement (2012),

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

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas wrote: >> >> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement (2012), the >> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the

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

On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas wrote: > Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement (2012), the > Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing > Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s >

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

2016-05-12 0:56 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > > > On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas wrote: > >> You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were >> cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this: >> >> >> >> Total Income 10% of

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

On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas wrote: > You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were > cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this: > > > > Total Income 10% of Total Income > > > > 2015 $9.028,56 $902,86 > 2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22 >

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

You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this: Total Income 10% of Total Income 2015 $9.028,56 $902,86 2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22 2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92 2012 $208,26 $1.908,27 *Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*

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

On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas" wrote: > > 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt : >> >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard

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

2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt : > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard > wrote: > >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard >> wrote: >> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt

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

100 CC: sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-...@lists.laptop.org Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss Well, I won't go against lionel, but I have something to say. Is not as if ever

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

; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss Yep. 2016-05-07 22:06 GMT+02:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>: Do you think having the motion as it is with $Y = 0

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

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard > wrote: > > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt wrote: > > > > ... > > > >> In other words that SL's effective

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

On 7 May 2016 at 11:47, Chris Leonard wrote: > > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to > > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the > > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status. > > > >

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

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt wrote: > > ... > >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all

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

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt wrote: ... > In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for > legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all expenditures > (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February. > > (But

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

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Laura Vargas wrote: > > > 2016-05-07 9:28 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt : > >> On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas" wrote: >> > the budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks >>

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

2016-05-07 9:28 GMT+08:00 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 >

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

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

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

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