Hi Adam Thanks for the thoughtful comments, I've added them as comments in the doc to help close them out
On 6 May 2016 at 12:06, Adam Holt <h...@laptop.org> wrote: > The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on > within > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit > is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are > better understood: > > - Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years, > not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential > monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague. Should $Y be $100 per month or > what? > > - The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's > life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a > financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in > advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must > have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th. If s/he > is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to > be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled > the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week > after the prior SL board meeting. So perhaps the only practical thing she > can do is run a report on the prior month of January? And even if s/he > tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they often take a > month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their system, so the Financial > Manager cannot in fact get hard information about January. My understanding > from SFConservancy is that on February 10th, we could only get hard info on > December's financials, and even then there's no absolute guarantee, as > receipts come in very late at times. > > On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us obtain > live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed up-to-date > financials until 2 months later! But what other options are there? Should > we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in exchange for recency? And > if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months > every time? Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of the > Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the best > of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of expenses/income > and balance on the last day of each month? > > - Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these > 2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment of > another Finance Manager." Can s/he miss one or both duties once per 6-month > period due to death of a close family member? Is s/he fired immediately for > missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2 years? If so, we > need to spell it out. If conversely we want to fire the Financial Manager > immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other, then we should say > that more explicitly. > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my >>> > motions >>> > receive a majority vote. >>> >>> I just checked >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit >>> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and >>> as she says, >>> >>> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been >>> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion. >>> >>> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today. >>> >>> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly >>> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a >>> month?) >>> >>> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed >>> within May :) >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers >>> Dave >> >> >> I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion >> 1, I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no >> evidence that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a >> shot. Re Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real >> problem and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold >> spending authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example, >> Bernie, as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally approved >> the request for the domain name payment. He already has that authority.) I >> am fine with the other two motions as written. >> >> -walter >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLOBs mailing list >> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs >> > > > > -- > Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org ! > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel