[Sur] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Walter Bender]

I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).

Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to
$168.88. The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience
with Aymara i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages
in the region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter
Bender as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip
Advisor grant and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting.
Edgar's report is at [2].

Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing Sugar
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

-walter

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
[2]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
***@sfconservancy.org>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Subject: approval details for Quispe-Chambi trip expenses? (was: Fwd:
Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
To: ***@sfconservancy.org


I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.

However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may be

Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
advance.

I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
Can someone send that along, please? A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
where it was approved are fine.

[snip]

--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
|------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.
Pls donate so we can increase staff: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

[Chris Leonard]

I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
Community Manager activities.

Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
requests. It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
when someone is sent to a conference on company time. This practice
provides a further return on investment. Not only are your ideas
shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
funding.

cjl

Post by Walter Bender
I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to $168.88.
The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with Aymara
i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter Bender
as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip Advisor grant
and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's report is
at [2].
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing Sugar
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
-walter
[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
[2]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may be

Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
advance.

I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
Can someone send that along, please? A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
where it was approved are fine.
[snip]
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
|------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.
Pls donate so we can increase staff: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

[Sebastian Silva]

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish),

Great!

Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
year).

Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara language.


_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
olpc-***@lists.la

[Chris Leonard]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Silva

Post by Sebastian Silva

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish),

Great!
Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
year).
Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara language.

Issues of language are best to the members of language communities to
resolve amongst themselves. In the end of the day, a deploying
organization is going to be able to make the final decision about what
is deployed, as MinEdPeru did. In reviewing the number of changes
made to the existing base of Aymara translations I seem to recall
seeing something on the order of 1,000 changes, which is actually
quite small when you consider that there were 20,000 entries in the
system, representing a 5% diff in an important language where Sugar
Labs represents the only substantive L10n effort that I have seen.
The work that Edgar did from the time of the Sugar Labs Lima meeting
until the MinEdPeru made a decision to hire someone to incorporate it
into a build for deployment was remarkable and an excellent investment
of Sugar Labs L10n funds. "If you build it they will come" is an
approach that may only succeed in a circumstance like Peru. I only
wish we had someone like Edgar working on Quechua (Cuzco-Collao).

I hope to see efforts on other Peruvian languages that can make the
leap to deployment that Edgar made possible for Aymara.

cjl
_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
olpc-***@lists

[Chris Leonard]

I meant to type "Issues of language are best left to the members of
language communities to resolve amongst themselves."

cjl

Post by Chris Leonard
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Silva

Post by Sebastian Silva

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish),

Great!
Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
year).
Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara language.

Issues of language are best to the members of language communities to
resolve amongst themselves. In the end of the day, a deploying
organization is going to be able to make the final decision about what
is deployed, as MinEdPeru did. In reviewing the number of changes
made to the existing base of Aymara translations I seem to recall
seeing something on the order of 1,000 changes, which is actually
quite small when you consider that there were 20,000 entries in the
system, representing a 5% diff in an important language where Sugar
Labs represents the only substantive L10n effort that I have seen.
The work that Edgar did from the time of the Sugar Labs Lima meeting
until the MinEdPeru made a decision to hire someone to incorporate it
into a build for deployment was remarkable and an excellent investment
of Sugar Labs L10n funds. "If you build it they will come" is an
approach that may only succeed in a circumstance like Peru. I only
wish we had someone like Edgar working on Quechua (Cuzco-Collao).
I hope to see efforts on other Peruvian languages that can make the
leap to deployment that Edgar made possible for Aymara.
cjl

_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
olpc-***@lists.laptop.org
http:

[Laura Vargas]

Post by Chris Leonard
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Silva

Post by Sebastian Silva

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish),

Great!
Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
year).
Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara

language.
Issues of language are best to the members of language communities to
resolve amongst themselves. In the end of the day, a deploying
organization is going to be able to make the final decision about what
is deployed, as MinEdPeru did.

I agree. Still, I believe collaboration should be promoted, not
competition. Hopefully they did met, shake hands and get happy about the
work they end up making together.

Post by Chris Leonard
In reviewing the number of changes
made to the existing base of Aymara translations I seem to recall
seeing something on the order of 1,000 changes, which is actually
quite small when you consider that there were 20,000 entries in the
system, representing a 5% diff in an important language where Sugar
Labs represents the only substantive L10n effort that I have seen.

Indeed. As Sebastian mentions, Roger was selected and hired by MinEdu to
polish Edgar's and José Henry Alanoca's (rip) and initial work.

Post by Chris Leonard
The work that Edgar did from the time of the Sugar Labs Lima meeting
until the MinEdPeru made a decision to hire someone to incorporate it
into a build for deployment was remarkable and an excellent investment
of Sugar Labs L10n funds.

Are you making a reference to the funds invested by SL on 2011 Sugar camp
Lima? or were there direct payments?

Post by Chris Leonard
"If you build it they will come" is an
approach that may only succeed in a circumstance like Peru. I only
wish we had someone like Edgar working on Quechua (Cuzco-Collao).

Let's analyse what worked for Edgar that did not work for Irma, the former
Quechua team leader.
I hope to see efforts on other Peruvian languages that can make the

Post by Chris Leonard
leap to deployment that Edgar made possible for Aymara.

cjl
We all. I would start by suggesting some basic investment into upstreamming
Awajún.

Best regards,
Laura

Post by Chris Leonard
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

[Adam Holt]

I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
unprofessional, in all instances.

Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
happening and why.

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
Community Manager activities.
Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
requests. It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
when someone is sent to a conference on company time. This practice
provides a further return on investment. Not only are your ideas
shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
funding.
cjl

Post by Walter Bender
I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to

$168.88.

Post by Walter Bender
The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with

Aymara

Post by Walter Bender
i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter

Bender

Post by Walter Bender
as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip Advisor

grant

Post by Walter Bender
and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's

report is

Post by Walter Bender
at [2].
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing

Sugar

Post by Walter Bender
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del

Perú

Post by Walter Bender
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
-walter
[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
[2]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing

Post by Walter Bender
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may be

Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
advance.

I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
Can someone send that along, please? A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
where it was approved are fine.
[snip]
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
|------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.

https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

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

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
--
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>http://unleashkids.org !

[Walter Bender]

FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal,
this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already
approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the
Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's
discretion as well. Nonetheless, for some reason or other, the SFC seems to
think that every outlay requires explicit approval from the entire board.
Further, it is not like this was an attempt to blind-side or circumvent the
board. I brought this up several months ago, but we have not managed to
vote on it.

Finally, I find the "wait-until-the-last-moment-to-object" style of
discourse to be highly unprofessional. I reiterate, this has been on the
table for months as has been the opportunity for feedback and discussion.

-walter

+1 for the remark of Adam.
+1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.
Lionel.

Post by Adam Holt
I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
unprofessional, in all instances.
Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
happening and why.

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
Community Manager activities.
Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
requests. It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
when someone is sent to a conference on company time. This practice
provides a further return on investment. Not only are your ideas
shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
funding.
cjl

Post by Walter Bender
I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to

$168.88.

Post by Walter Bender
The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with

Aymara

Post by Walter Bender
i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter

Bender

Post by Walter Bender
as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip Advisor

grant

Post by Walter Bender
and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's

report is

Post by Walter Bender
at [2].
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing

Sugar

Post by Walter Bender
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del

Perú

Post by Walter Bender
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
-walter
[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
[2]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing

Post by Walter Bender
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may

be

Post by Walter Bender

Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
advance.

I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
Can someone send that along, please? A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
where it was approved are fine.
[snip]
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
|------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire

one.
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

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

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
--
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>http://unleashkids.org !

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

[Adam Holt]

Post by Walter Bender
FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal,
this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already
approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the
Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's
discretion as well. Nonetheless, for some reason or other, the SFC seems to
think that every outlay requires explicit approval from the entire board.
Further, it is not like this was an attempt to blind-side or circumvent the
board. I brought this up several months ago, but we have not managed to
vote on it.
Finally, I find the "wait-until-the-last-moment-to-object" style of
discourse to be highly unprofessional. I reiterate, this has been on the
table for months as has been the opportunity for feedback and discussion.

My own hope is that Sugar Labs seek a new tone of governance, putting aside
baseless ad hominem attacks against on its own board members and
hard-working sponsoring organization (SFConservancy.org), who happen to
prefer more transparent and understandable financials.

My hope is that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard's monthly blog
(and similar) will be just the beginning to show us all this upfront,
honorable, inclusive-of-all-kinds-of-people (even accountants, if we are to
grow this movement) approach is in fact possible beginning in 2016.

-walter

Post by Walter Bender

+1 for the remark of Adam.
+1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.
Lionel.

Post by Adam Holt
I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
unprofessional, in all instances.
Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
happening and why.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Chris Leonard <

Post by Chris Leonard
I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
Community Manager activities.
Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
requests. It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
when someone is sent to a conference on company time. This practice
provides a further return on investment. Not only are your ideas
shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
funding.
cjl

Post by Walter Bender
I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we

got

Post by Walter Bender
side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción

e

Post by Walter Bender
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima.

The

Post by Walter Bender
total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to

$168.88.

Post by Walter Bender
The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with

Aymara

Post by Walter Bender
i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter

Bender

Post by Walter Bender
as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip

Advisor grant

Post by Walter Bender
and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's

report is

Post by Walter Bender
at [2].
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing

Sugar

Post by Walter Bender
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias

del Perú

Post by Walter Bender
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
-walter
[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
[2]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing

Post by Walter Bender
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may

be

Post by Walter Bender

Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from

the

Post by Walter Bender

SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a

travel

Post by Walter Bender

advance.

I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
Can someone send that along, please? A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
where it was approved are fine.
[snip]
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
|------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire

one.
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

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

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
--
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs>http://unleashkids.org !

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
--
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
http://unleashkids.org !

[Sean DALY]

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

[Sean DALY]

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

[Walter Bender]

Post by Sean DALY

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

Post by Sean DALY
Sean

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

[Walter Bender]

Post by Walter Bender

Post by Sean DALY

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.

Post by Walter Bender
-walter

Post by Sean DALY
Sean

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

[Sean DALY]

Done.

Wow! bravo Walter that was quick!!
Sean

[Caryl Bigenho]

Sent from my iPhone

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.

Much of the recent gridlock in the meetings has been as a result of trying to do what you suggest. If at least discussing in advance, if not actually voting, can happen, the SLOB might actually be able to get more things done in the meetings.

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.

Dave and I have already done this with Motions A, B, C, and D. (In CA we use both letters and numbers for propositions).

Sean
_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur

Caryl

[Adam Holt]

Post by Walter Bender
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing

Sugar

Post by Walter Bender
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del

Perú

Post by Walter Bender
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

Did this motion pass?

Yes.

I can't find a record of it in my email.
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
--
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>http://unleashkids.org !

[Claudia Urrea]

Dave and all,

I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass,
pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend
on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.

Motions are posted and by the time I read them, they have received several
comments and have evolved into something different. Could we call them
something different before they have received enough comments and have been
refined, so they can quickly move to approval process?

Claudia

Post by Walter Bender

Post by Walter Bender
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing

Sugar

Post by Walter Bender
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias

del Perú

Post by Walter Bender
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

Did this motion pass?

Yes.

Post by Walter Bender
I can't find a record of it in my email.

How do Members know when motions pass or fail?

I am waiting for an answer to this question.
_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

[Sean DALY]

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

This page is very useful.

Post by Claudia Urrea
Dave and all,
I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass,
pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend
on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.
Motions are posted and by the time I read them, they have received several
comments and have evolved into something different. Could we call them
something different before they have received enough comments and have been
refined, so they can quickly move to approval process?
Claudia

Post by Walter Bender

Post by Walter Bender
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing

Sugar

Post by Walter Bender
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias

del Perú

Post by Walter Bender
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

Did this motion pass?

Yes.

Post by Walter Bender
I can't find a record of it in my email.

How do Members know when motions pass or fail?

I am waiting for an answer to this question.
_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur