[Sur] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Walter Bender]

Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.

We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:

* Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by
CJL [1]);
* Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
* GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let
mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009
to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not
revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has
mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could
accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or
not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should
discuss it.

regards.

-walter

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
[2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685



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

[Caryl Bigenho]

Please add my motions regarding finances under new business. They will be finalized at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Thanks,
Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:35 AM, samson goddy <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Perfect timing!
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:29:23 -0400
> From: ***@gmail.com
> To: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> CC: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-***@lists.laptop.org
> Subject: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss
>
> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>
> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>
> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by CJL [1]);
> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009 to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should discuss it.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[Laura Vargas]

2016-04-30 1:42 GMT+08:00 Caryl Bigenho <***@hotmail.com>:

> Please add my motions regarding finances under new business. They will be
> finalized at least 72 hours before the meeting.
> Thanks,
> Caryl
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:35 AM, samson goddy <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Perfect timing!
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:29:23 -0400
> From: ***@gmail.com
> To: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> CC: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org;
> olpc-***@lists.laptop.org
> Subject: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to
> discuss
>
> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>
> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>
> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by
> CJL [1]);
> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let
> mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009
> to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not
> revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has
> mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could
> accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or
> not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should
> discuss it.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
>
> Could not see the proposal. Is there a public link?

Thanks in advance.

>
>
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
> _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Caryl Bigenho]

I have published the link to this list several times. Am traveling at the moment but can send it out again when I get home this evening.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 29 April 2016 at 14:29, Laura Vargas <***@somosazucar.org> wrote:
>> Could not see the proposal. Is there a public link?
>
> I agree, all motions ought to be public :)

[Walter Bender]

Caryl has four open motions to discuss as well (See [3]).
CJL's discussion of Samson's proposal is found below. The proposal itself
can be found here at [4].

*Chris Leonard* cjl at sugarlabs.org
<slobs%40lists.sugarlabs.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSLOBS%5D%20Attn%3A%20SLOBs%20re%3A%20Yoruba%20language%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHdAatYaD-Yt0%2BiDchQn0mU4jic_eNe%2BHXOPV_P%3DFX6rOBYTSA%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
*Sun Apr 17 12:28:52 EDT 2016*


- Previous message: [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003430.html>
- Next message: [SLOBS] Attn: SLOBs re: Yoruba language proposal
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003496.html>
- *Messages sorted by:* [ date ]
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/date.html#3442> [
thread ]
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/thread.html#3442> [
subject ]
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/subject.html#3442> [
author ]
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/author.html#3442>

------------------------------

Dear SLOB Members,

I have been asked to assist in the development of localization
proposals for possible funding by Sugar Labs and in that capacity, I
have been working with Samson Goddy to refine a clear and specific
proposal to support some of the L10n work he would like to undertake
in Nigerian languages.

Part of the overall effort as Translation Community Manager obviously
includes developing a clearly defined process/format for presenting
these proposals to the SLOB for consideration/action, development of
which Laura Vargas has advocated, and I concur that a well documented
process is needed. I will be developing wiki page(s) to help guide
potential applicants and define a clear and transparent process, but I
do not want to make Samson's request wait until such formal action is
completed before putting a proposal to the SLOB. To some extent, it
is necessary to hand walk at least one proposal through the process
and make notes on how the SLOB want it to proceed in future.

I have attached some draft language for the terms and deliverables of
a proposal to do L10n work into the Yoruba language of Nigeria. These
terms were developed in collaboration with Samson and he has requested
that I present them to the SLOB for action at their earliest possible
convenience.

Neither Samson Goddy (cc'ed) or myself have access to the SLOB mailing
list and so I have used individual addresses and cc'ed the SLOB list
(for the record). I hope that is acceptable.

In my role as TCM I feel I should act both as an advocate for language
communities and as a steward of the funds available through the
TripAdvisor grant for such efforts. This dual role does not need to
be in conflict, but does require walking a fine line and I think it is
important to point out the ultimate decision to fund or not fund is a
SLOB responsibility. I do anticipate (and included in the terms) a
role in monitoring performance of any funded L10n effort and signing
off on completion of milestones.

I would like to act as an advocate on behalf of this proposal in the
form of seeking to address any questions that I might be able to
answer on Samson's behalf about technical details, in particular. Some
of the terms proposed (e.g. start-up cost milestone upfront) are an
attempt to try to address some of Samson's specific challenges (a
young man operating in a resource constrained environment) and are, of
course, subject to discussion and hopefully mutually acceptable
compromise. This is an opening bid to see if this set of terms is
generally acceptable to the SLOB. I would like to acknowledge that
the overhead costs (project management fees) are not insubstantial
(roughly one-third), but I think in this instance they represent an
investment in potential future work to be done in other languages by
this contributor who has shown a history of making useful volunteer
contributions, both personally and by team-building in Igbo.

I leave it to the SLOB to define for itself the conditions under which
this decision will be made (e.g. formally moved/seconded for a vote,
scheduled for a future meeting, discussed/voted by e-mail, etc.) but
Samson has expressed that for him, time is of the essence.

Thank you for your consideration.

cjl

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This proposal is for the translation of Sugar user interface and
certain Sugar Activities into the Yoruba language (ISO-639 code - yo).

Milestone 1 - The initial payment of $350 USD will cover startup costs
(internet connection fees, localizer recruitment/training, etc.).
Payment is to be made upon successful completion of contractual
arrangements with fiscal sponsor (SFC).

Milestone 2 - Glucose - Payable upon completion and upload to Pootle
of the PO files for sugar, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, OLPC_switch_desktop
will be for $1,350 USD. Included in this milestone is a $300 USD
project management fee, in addition to fees of approximately 40
cents/word for the projects included in this milestone. The uploaded
files must pass all "critical" error checks (as flagged by the Pootle
software) and be approved by the Sugar Labs Translation Community
Manager, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

Milestone 2 must be completed prior to Milestone 3.

Milestone 3 - Fructose - Payable upon completion and upload of the PO
files for Calculate, Chat, ImageViewer, Jukebox, Log, Paint, Pippy,
Portfolio, Read, ReadETexts, Record, Speak, Terminal, TurtleArt, Web,
Write will be for $2,300 USD. Included in this milestone is a $675 USD
project management fee, in addition to fees of approximately 40
cents/word for the projects included in this milestone. The uploaded
files must pass all "critical" error checks (as flagged by the Pootle
software) and be approved by the Sugar Labs Translation Community
Manager, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

Total anticipated costs for all three milestone payments will be $4,000 USD.

All projects are hosted on the Sugar Labs Pootle server at
http://translate.sugarlabs.org/yo/

Translation may be performed off-line with subsequent upload to the
Pootle server.

see attached file for further details of cost estimation.


[3]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
[4]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZXRvZVdjTzRsUWNZN3YtWlQ3M3o5R2ZSQUl3/view?usp=sharing

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Walter Bender <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>
> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>
> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by
> CJL [1]);
> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let
> mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009
> to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not
> revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has
> mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could
> accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or
> not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should
> discuss it.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>



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

[Caryl Bigenho]

Why does the vision statement say "but not phones"? I run Sugarizer on my iPhone and Ed's Android phone. There are some formatting issues but they are easily overcome. In the real world of developing countries, children are probably more likely to have access to one of these tiny screens than any tablet or computer. They deserve access to Sugar too.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 2, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Lionel Laské <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Would like to add a quick motion to ensure we share the Vision Proposal 2016 [1].
> Not the goal part of the page, at first.
>
> Best regards from France.
>
> Lionel.
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016
>
> 2016-04-29 16:29 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender <***@gmail.com>:
>> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>>
>> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>>
>> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by CJL [1]);
>> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
>> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009 to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should discuss it.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
>> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi all...
I finally had a chance to check out the discussions about the motions I have proposed. Unfortunately I don't really have the chance to do much commenting as I am restricted to communicating with my I phone for a while.

After a great 10 days in WA and going to LinuxFestNW (on our own dime), we got home and Ed started having dizzy spells. After a lot of testing, it has been decided that the time to get a pacemaker has come. So, if all goes according to plan, it will be implanted this evening and he will get to go home about 24 hours later.

That means I will miss tomorrow's meeting. If I need to add anything to the motion or discussion before it comes up for vote... Send an email to this thread.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 3, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 09:37, Caryl Bigenho <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Why does the vision statement say "but not phones"? I run Sugarizer on my iPhone and Ed's Android phone. There are some formatting issues but they are easily overcome. In the real world of developing countries, children are probably more likely to have access to one of these tiny screens than any tablet or computer. They deserve access to Sugar too.
>
> I added that because when I tested it seemed to not work well, but I don't object to removing it and have just done so :)
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Vision_proposal_2016&diff=98338&oldid=98337

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi...
A quick update on Ed (Bigenho)... He got his pacemaker last night and might get to go home this PM.

I will be at the hospital all day and will miss the SLOB meeting. I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my motions receive a majority vote.

I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been discussed. They are an important part of the motion.

Caryl



Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Walter Bender <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>
> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>
> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by CJL [1]);
> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009 to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should discuss it.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho <***@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
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>

[José Miguel García]

Estimados:
Lamentablemente estoy trancado en el trabajo, por lo que no podré
participar en la reunion de hoy.
Disculpas

Saludos
El may 6, 2016 12:09 PM, "Walter Bender" <***@gmail.com> escribió:



On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho <***@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
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>

[Andres Aguirre]

Same for me :(
El 06/05/2016 12:38, "José Miguel García" <***@gmail.com> escribió:

> Estimados:
> Lamentablemente estoy trancado en el trabajo, por lo que no podré
> participar en la reunion de hoy.
> Disculpas
>
> Saludos
> El may 6, 2016 12:09 PM, "Walter Bender" <***@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho <***@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
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lista olpc-Sur
> olpc-***@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lista olpc-Sur
> olpc-***@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur
>
>

[Adam Holt]

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 <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho <***@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
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLOBs mailing list
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


--
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !

[Adam Holt]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Karen Sandler <***@sfconservancy.org>
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 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.
>>
>
I meant to clarify above that SFConservancy has no possible way provide SL
fully complete/accurate financial info when receipts are sometimes
submitted ~90 days late? What Karen says below, exactly!

In short, the current/proposed Financial Manager job description (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc)
needs more tuning of its operational mechanics month-by-month and
quarter-by-quarter, for the reasons Karen laid out.

If in the end SL will benefit from 10+ hours-per-month of professional
financial consulting/reporting every month, we cannot make an underpaid
Financial Manager and others' lives impossible, by imposing more accounting
burdens than is in fact possible within 10
hours-per-month-or-whatever-is-recommended, such that nothing happens in
the end (back to square one worst case) if we ask for too much.

PS on a more positive note (!) can someone help me publish SFConservancy's
latest travel/expense/reimbursement guidelines and requirements directly
off of https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#For_funding_travel ? Is there
a public link somewhere already, or can we make one now, if someone has
this/these document(s) handy?

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?
>>
>
> It's great you're contemplating hiring a financial manager - increased
> engagement from SL in its finances might solve some of the problems from
> third-parties that are the root cause of delays in update to the books (we
> cannot help the fact that travelers sometimes take a long time to ask for
> reimbursement, for example). As Adam indicates, any faster financial info
> would surely be less precise. As we hear in reports from others, we're the
> fastest at getting our financial data up to date in the entire industry. We
> keep books for almost 40 projects that have many transactions, and we're
> doing it with only a staff of 3 who have a lot of other work too. A
> financial manager will be able to track the few transactions that haven't
> processed in the interim so you have the granularilty when you need it.
>
> More realistically, it's worth reiterating that building an annual budget
> is really what you should focus on. We will track spending against it on an
> ongoing basis. You currently have a balance of over $80k that has not
> changed in some time - are you contemplating undergoing expenses in a 2 or
> 3 month period that would need exact amounts on a daily basis? For example,
> our own books (which are much bigger) are updated at the same rate as SL's
> and it works great for us as we build our budget and monitor income
> throughout the year. A Financial manager could also save us time and
> heartache by vetting travel reimbursement requests against the travel
> policy.
>
> Given the holistic discussion, it's also worth saying that while I (along
> with everyone else at Conservancy) am a huge supporter of SLs and would be
> happy for you to stay with us, we take a loss on our fiscal sponsorship
> work for you. On average, you give back to us $36/week for *all* the
> services we provide to you. That's less than $2000 per year when we must
> pay our auditors $12k alone.
>
> As always you should definitely feel free to look for another nonprofit
> home. We deliberately designed our termination provisions to be very easy
> to leave. As I said, we're unaware of anyone doing it faster (and we hear
> that most are far slower in updating books) but we'd have no problem
> helping you to transition to another org.
>
> I don't always follow this list closely, but I'm happy to set up a call or
> IRC chat any time.
>
> karen
>
>
> Karen M. Sandler
> Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
> __________
> Become a Supporter today! http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>
> --
> <http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/>
> <http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/>
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> <http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/>http://unleashkids.org !
>

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-07 2:25 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Karen Sandler <***@sfconservancy.org>
> 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 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.
>>>
>>
> I meant to clarify above that SFConservancy has no possible way provide SL
> fully complete/accurate financial info when receipts are sometimes
> submitted ~90 days late? What Karen says below, exactly!
>
> In short, the current/proposed Financial Manager job description (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc)
> needs more tuning of its operational mechanics month-by-month and
> quarter-by-quarter, for the reasons Karen laid out.
>
> If in the end SL will benefit from 10+ hours-per-month of professional
> financial consulting/reporting every month, we cannot make an underpaid
> Financial Manager and others' lives impossible, by imposing more accounting
> burdens than is in fact possible within 10
> hours-per-month-or-whatever-is-recommended, such that nothing happens in
> the end (back to square one worst case) if we ask for too much.
>
> PS on a more positive note (!) can someone help me publish SFConservancy's
> latest travel/expense/reimbursement guidelines and requirements directly
> off of https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#For_funding_travel ? Is
> there a public link somewhere already, or can we make one now, if someone
> has this/these document(s) handy?
>
> 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?
>>>
>>
>> It's great you're contemplating hiring a financial manager - increased
>> engagement from SL in its finances might solve some of the problems from
>> third-parties that are the root cause of delays in update to the books (we
>> cannot help the fact that travelers sometimes take a long time to ask for
>> reimbursement, for example). As Adam indicates, any faster financial info
>> would surely be less precise. As we hear in reports from others, we're the
>> fastest at getting our financial data up to date in the entire industry. We
>> keep books for almost 40 projects that have many transactions, and we're
>> doing it with only a staff of 3 who have a lot of other work too. A
>> financial manager will be able to track the few transactions that haven't
>> processed in the interim so you have the granularilty when you need it.
>>
>> More realistically, it's worth reiterating that building an annual budget
>> is really what you should focus on.
>
>
I sent an email on April 17 with the Subject SL 2016 Annual Budget and a
draft based on the numbers published by Adam.

Dave made some interesting suggestions and I do agree that there is a need
for financial vision and evaluation (4 to 5 simple indicators of
Community's Financial Health).


> We will track spending against it on an ongoing basis. You currently have
>> a balance of over $80k that has not changed in some time
>
>
Latter on April 21, I attached an updated draft for the Budget including
the financial data of the 2016 approved motions by SLOBs so far.

So, without counting with any more income in the period, and reducing the
budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
(USD$12,000.00) and Walter Conferences Travels (USD$ 3,977.42), the net
asset value comes to ~USD$ 66,000.00.

I also considered the projected yearly fees for the conservancy (truth is I
am not sure how it is calculated) so I did estimate with the simple 4 year
average (USD$ 8,297,33).

Therefore the new estimated asset value would be something around ~USD$
57,600.00

Of course, someone from the SLOBs should confirm the figures.I am attaching
the draft here again.


> - are you contemplating undergoing expenses in a 2 or 3 month period that
>> would need exact amounts on a daily basis? For example, our own books
>> (which are much bigger) are updated at the same rate as SL's and it works
>> great for us as we build our budget and monitor income throughout the year.
>> A Financial manager could also save us time and heartache by vetting travel
>> reimbursement requests against the travel policy.
>>
>> Given the holistic discussion, it's also worth saying that while I (along
>> with everyone else at Conservancy) am a huge supporter of SLs and would be
>> happy for you to stay with us, we take a loss on our fiscal sponsorship
>> work for you. On average, you give back to us $36/week for *all* the
>> services we provide to you. That's less than $2000 per year when we must
>> pay our auditors $12k alone.
>>
>> As always you should definitely feel free to look for another nonprofit
>> home. We deliberately designed our termination provisions to be very easy
>> to leave. As I said, we're unaware of anyone doing it faster (and we hear
>> that most are far slower in updating books) but we'd have no problem
>> helping you to transition to another org.
>>
>> I don't always follow this list closely, but I'm happy to set up a call
>> or IRC chat any time.
>>
>> karen
>>
>>
>> Karen M. Sandler
>> Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
>> __________
>> Become a Supporter today! http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>>
>> --
>> <http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/>
>> <http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/>
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
>> <http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/>http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
I do hope we - as a community - can get to build a coherent annual budget
that contemplates the vision and needs for investment on community members
needs.


--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org

IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Adam Holt]

On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas" <***@somosazucar.org> 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 1st
2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-07 9:28 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:

> On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas" <***@somosazucar.org> 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 1st
> 2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.
>
Thank you Adam for helping us understand. I had no idea how the
contribution for the SFC was calculated. Does the 10% apply for every
transaction (incomes and outcomes) or is it only for outcomes?

Can you please confirm if the 10% (USD$ 1,200) will go under the "Donated
To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" liability account?

Best regards
--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Laura Vargas <***@somosazucar.org> wrote:

>
>
> 2016-05-07 9:28 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:
>
>> On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas" <***@somosazucar.org> 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 = $13,200 total, from May 1st
>> 2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.
>>
> Thank you Adam for helping us understand. I had no idea how the
> contribution for the SFC was calculated. Does the 10% apply for every
> transaction (incomes and outcomes) or is it only for outcomes?
>
> Can you please confirm if the 10% (USD$ 1,200) will go under the "Donated
> To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" liability account?
>

I'm presuming so.

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 someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)

[Chris Leonard]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt <***@laptop.org> 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 someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)

I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof. It is my
understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).

That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement.

http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf

"Fees.
The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."

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.

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement

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

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt <***@laptop.org> 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 someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
> >
> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof. It is my
> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
> >
> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement.
> >
> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
> >
> > "Fees.
> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
> >
> > cjl
>
>
> Adam,
>
> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>

There no reason to believe otherwise. This agreement is what stands unless
you have information that nobody else has :-)

Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>

10% of initial capital too? Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
carefully please if they have time this weekend please.

Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect those
and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if we as a
community have done our own homework first, Thanks!


> cjl
>

--
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi All…
Ed is home now and his brand-new Echo-cardiogram-friendly pacemaker is happily ticking away at 70 bpm. So, now I can finally give some feed back on the motions….
Initially I left the values of $X and $Y undefined as I thought folks would want to discuss these and fill them in. So far that hasn't happened. The Financial Manager job holds a lot of responsibility and could take considerable time to do well. I hope folks will agree with me and set the value of a monthly stipend accordingly.
For small expenses, it seems $100 would be a reasonable amount to cover most contingencies. Some may feel that is too low. That is why I was hoping it would get discussed.
Perhaps this could be set annually when a proposed budget for the year comes up for approval. It would be great if we could look forward to possible contingencies and events in the coming year like conferences that, so far, most of us have done on our own dime. Money for "marketing" could be set aside annually and conferences could be a part of it.
Since the original motion has been broken up into parts, there is no reason it has to be voted on all at once. Perhaps we could start with the part that establishes a Financial Manager with a fair stipend?
I have been thinking a bit while sitting with Ed in the hospital, and I am beginning to believe that 2 more things need to be done as well to make SugarLabs a viable concern that will last.
One thing is to define the goals of SugarLabs. Looking at the initial goals… they are fine, but perhaps we need to look also at the changes in technology that are still rapidly happening. Considering more than just Sugar on XOs has to be the way forward. Things like IIAB (and Adam's IIAP) and Sugarizer are just the beginning. Who knows what will be coming around the next corner?
Something that focuses on bringing quality open-source educational learning opportunities to the children of the world, regardless of language, location, economic status, or other factors should be the goal. This means that promoting excellent platforms, other than Sugar (such as the great stuff OLE-Nepal has) should be a part of the efforts.
Secondly, hardware should not be an issue. Sugarizer's focus on bringing Sugar to any device with a screen is an excellent beginning. It needs a lot of fine tuning. For example, I find that Sugarizer on an iPhone is quite different than Sugarizer on an Android phone, which is also different from Sugarizer on an old iPod or on a Kindle Fire tablet or an Apple iPad. Documentation telling the user how to optimize it for their own particular device could be a SugarLabs project that everyone could contribute to. I would be happy to outline the steps for doing this so we could get such a project started.
Which brings up a third thing that I would love to see added to these two goals… making Sugar and other open source software easily accessable to children, parents, and teachers via easy to follow directions and suggestions for using it to maximize fun, learning, and discovery. Documentation is a key element that SugarLabs has not done well so far.
OK. This has been a much too long answer to Dave's simple question:" is your intention for the motion to be drafted with $X and $Y undefined?" Sorry! It is sooo much easier to type on my Mac than it is on my iPhone that I guess I sort of got carried away! So, short answer: No, they should be defined and I think the Sugar Labs members should discuss and reach a consensus on the amounts.
Caryl



From: ***@lab6.com
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:12:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [SLOBS] [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss
To: ***@olpc-france.org; ***@hotmail.com
CC: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-***@lists.laptop.org


Hi
On 7 May 2016 at 16:09, Lionel Laské <***@gmail.com> wrote:2016-05-07 22:06 GMT+02:00 Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com>:
Do you think having the motion as it is with $Y = 0 is ok?
Yep.
Okay good :)
Caryl, is your intention for the motion to be drafted with $X and $Y undefined, so that they can be defined by later motions?
--
Cheers
Dave

[Caryl Bigenho]

OK. I'm with Samson on this. If we had the ability to spend small amounts on things for conferences and exhibitions like sticker materials, banners, or even pizza lunches for our booth volunteers so they wouldn't have to leave to go eat, we could do a better job of "selling" SugarLabs and its projects. But I think members (not just SLOBs) should have input on this. I suggested $100 max without prior SLOB approval. Others may think it should be higher or lower.
Caryl

From: ***@hotmail.com
To: ***@olpc-france.org; ***@lab6.com
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 21:25:42 +0100
CC: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-***@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 everyone wants to take money from SL but for the benefit for the SugarLabs. If we keep using this mindset I don't we will be able to grow bigger as planned. My project was for the betterment for both Nigeria and SL. Like I said before I believe in helping not profit organization. I volunteer for Schlumberger SEED project which claudia is aware of. Guess what, I don't receive money from the company. It up to SL to decide how to get users, so my project was a way I know I can be able to get more users. Sometimes you have to spend to make things bigger. Nigeria is a third world country, so lot of cash don't flow. Thanks
Samson Goddy

Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:09:08 +0200
From: ***@gmail.com
To: ***@lab6.com
CC: ***@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-***@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-***@lists.laptop.org; ***@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 <***@lab6.com>:
Do you think having the motion as it is with $Y = 0 is ok?


_______________________________________________

SLOBs mailing list

***@lists.sugarlabs.org

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt <***@laptop.org> 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 someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>> >
>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof. It is my
>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>> >
>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
>> Agreement.
>> >
>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>> >
>> > "Fees.
>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>> >
>> > cjl
>>
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>>
>
> There no reason to believe otherwise. This agreement is what stands
> unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
>
> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>>
>
> 10% of initial capital too? Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
> days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
> carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
>
>
According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent (10%)
of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
operations.

Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions made
to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
early this year);



Total Income 10% of Total Income Donated To SFC Difference





2015 $9.028,56 $902,86 $12.683,40 ($11.780,54)
2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22 $11.780,54 ($6.818,32)
2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92 $6.818,34 ($1.895,42)





*Total* *$107.879,93* *$10.787,99* *$31.282,28* *($20.494,29)*


Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect those
> and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if we as a
> community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
>

Adam,

I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so we
can clarify the numbers.

Thanks in advance,
laura v


>
>> cjl
>>
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Adam Holt]

On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas" <***@somosazucar.org> wrote:
>
> 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:
>>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt <***@laptop.org> 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 someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>>> >
>>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof. It is my
>>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
>>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>>> >
>>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
Agreement.
>>> >
>>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>>> >
>>> > "Fees.
>>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
>>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
>>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>>> >
>>> > cjl
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
>>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>>
>>
>> There no reason to believe otherwise. This agreement is what stands
unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
>>
>>> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>>
>>
>> 10% of initial capital too? Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
>>
>
> According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent
(10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
> limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
operations.
>
> Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions made
to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
early this year);

Laura,

I think you are misinterpreting https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance

When it says "Donated To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" that implies a
cumulative total over the years, just like every other line-item in those
lower paragraphs, for each financial year.

In conclusion your table appears to be (accidentally) greatly exaggerating
the amounts being paid (held for) SFConservancy, so you may want issue a
corrected version.

Regards-
Adam

> Total Income
> 10% of Total Income
> Donated To SFC
> Difference
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015
> $9.028,56
> $902,86
> $12.683,40
> ($11.780,54)
> 2014
> $49.622,18
> $4.962,22
> $11.780,54
> ($6.818,32)
> 2013
> $49.229,19
> $4.922,92
> $6.818,34
> ($1.895,42)
>
>
>
>
>
> Total
> $107.879,93
> $10.787,99
> $31.282,28
> ($20.494,29)
>
>
>> Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect
those and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if
we as a community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
>
>
> Adam,
>
> I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so
we can clarify the numbers.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> laura v
>
>>
>>>
>>> cjl
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>

[Laura Vargas]

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*


Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
IÂŽm attaching the corrected file.

Sorry again and best regards,
Laura V



2016-05-11 23:58 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:

> On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas" <***@somosazucar.org> wrote:
> >
> > 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt <***@laptop.org>:
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard <
> ***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt <***@laptop.org> 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 someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
> >>> >
> >>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof. It is
> my
> >>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a
> 10%
> >>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
> >>> >
> >>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
> Agreement.
> >>> >
> >>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
> >>> >
> >>> > "Fees.
> >>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
> >>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
> >>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
> >>> >
> >>> > 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.
> >>> >
> >>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
> >>> >
> >>> > cjl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
> >>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
> >>
> >>
> >> There no reason to believe otherwise. This agreement is what stands
> unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
> >>
> >>> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
> >>
> >>
> >> 10% of initial capital too? Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
> days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
> carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
> >>
> >
> > According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent
> (10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
> > limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
> operations.
> >
> > Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions
> made to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
> between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
> actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
> early this year);
>
> Laura,
>
> I think you are misinterpreting https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance
>
> When it says "Donated To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" that implies a
> cumulative total over the years, just like every other line-item in those
> lower paragraphs, for each financial year.
>
> In conclusion your table appears to be (accidentally) greatly exaggerating
> the amounts being paid (held for) SFConservancy, so you may want issue a
> corrected version.
>
> Regards-
> Adam
>
> > Total Income
> > 10% of Total Income
> > Donated To SFC
> > Difference
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015
> > $9.028,56
> > $902,86
> > $12.683,40
> > ($11.780,54)
> > 2014
> > $49.622,18
> > $4.962,22
> > $11.780,54
> > ($6.818,32)
> > 2013
> > $49.229,19
> > $4.922,92
> > $6.818,34
> > ($1.895,42)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Total
> > $107.879,93
> > $10.787,99
> > $31.282,28
> > ($20.494,29)
> >
> >
> >> Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect
> those and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if
> we as a community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Adam,
> >
> > I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so
> we can clarify the numbers.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > laura v
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> cjl
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> >> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Laura V.
> > I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
> >
> > Identi.ca/Skype acaire
> > IRC kaametza
> >
> > Happy Learning!
> >
>



--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 0:56 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com>:

>
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas <***@somosazucar.org> 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
>> 2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
>> 2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
>> *Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*
>>
>>
>> Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
>> IÂŽm attaching the corrected file.
>>
>
> 2012 seems odd? :)
>

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
general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.

;D

--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Chris Leonard]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas <***@somosazucar.org> 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
>> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.
>
>
> That makes sense :) Thanks!
>

Yes, prior to the 2012 Amended FSA, I don't think Sugar Labs had paid
anything to SFC, so there was a one-time 10% payment on assets in the
bank. Since that time it is 10% of revenue (donations). FWIW, I
don't think they are taking their 10% cut of our annual bank account
interest, not that it amounts to much or matters one way or the other.

cjl
_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
olpc-***@lists.laptop.or

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 2:03 GMT+08:00 Chris Leonard <***@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas <***@somosazucar.org> 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
> >> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.
> >
> >
> > That makes sense :) Thanks!
> >
>
> Yes, prior to the 2012 Amended FSA, I don't think Sugar Labs had paid
> anything to SFC, so there was a one-time 10% payment on assets in the
> bank. Since that time it is 10% of revenue (donations). FWIW, I
> don't think they are taking their 10% cut of our annual bank account
> interest, not that it amounts to much or matters one way or the other.
>
> cjl
>


Going back to the annual budget planning after confirming all the numbers
and deducing the already passed motions, there are ~US$65,000 available for
planning/distributing among activities/teams/projects etc.

--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 2:08 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com>:

>
> On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas <***@somosazucar.org> 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.
>

I agree that there is a need for income strategies as well. Still, the idea
of annual budget is to plan the expenses so that the most areas of an
organization can produce results in what they do.

It would be ideal to count with a somehow stable basic income, and
therefore it would make sense to promote a motion for Lionel's idea of a
yearly membership fee. Of course it would have to contemplate the
exemptions of minors and members who actually don't have resources to pay.

Been more than 80 members, a yearly fee of US$100 with an estimated ~50% of
exemptions would put in SL general fund ~US$4.000 per year, probably enough
for basic operations.


--
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

[Caryl Bigenho]

Dues are a bad idea!
Sorry folks
Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 11 May 2016 at 22:28, Sam Parkinson <***@gmail.com> 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, and I also pay member dues to several typography non-profits (ATypI, SoTA, TDC) and in the past for a sailing club.
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[Sean DALY]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Sam Parkinson <***@gmail.com>
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
co-founder and treasurer of a small musical event nonprofit and dues are
the major source of annual income to cover expenses. I am also on the board
of a medium sized nonprofit (library support, >300 members) and the major
portion of operating revenue is from dues. I pay dues to a musical
instruction association, and vote for officers. Etc.

I believe collecting dues is a fine idea. Arrangements are always possible
for the levels - my musical nonprofit has regular dues at €20,
family/household at €30, student/unemployed at €10, sponsor at €100 (their
names are printed on the programs).

Of course, dues paying members expect and are entitled to annual financial
reporting.

Sean

[Chris Leonard]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY <***@gmail.com> 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 sympathetic to those who find their wish to
volunteer made difficult by personal finances.

cjl

[Adam Holt]

Progress. Further progress will come after I speak with Bradley Kuhn in
coming weeks, to understand has real-world recommendations on
pacing/publishing financials, based on his extensive experiences with the
~40 NGO's he (as SFConservancy's de facto bookkeeper) supervises/supports.
I hope he has time in the coming week, but if not I will work around his
schedule.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I went over Caryl's google doc again after re-reading the below, and I
> must say that I am no longer surprised by Adam's comments at the SLOB
> meeting on Friday; it seems that these clearly expressed points were
> not addressed in the text that Caryl submitted.
>
> Adam, please review the Google Doc with my comments and let me know if
> this resolves your concerns.
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 10:06, Adam Holt <***@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.
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>