[IAEP] SLOBs approval needed for Bender expenses of $1, 389.29 for Constructionalism 2016 (was Re: Sugar Labs travel)

[Adam Holt]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
accounting at sfconservancy.org> wrote:

> Adam,
>
> The accounting department at Conservancy never received a reply to this
> thread below.  As Representative, I would have expected reply to come
> from you.
>
> > Walter Bender wrote on 10 February:
> >> Please find attached my expenses for the Turtle/Music Blocks workshop
> >> in Thailand this month.
>
> I wrote on  8 March:
> > I have processed this expense report for a total expenses amount of
> > $1,389.29 for Bender's travel to the Constructionalism 2016 conference.
> > However, I don't see any records of SLOBs approval of this expense.
> >
> > Adam, as Representative, can you please communicate ASAP that the SLOBs
> > have approved this expense?
> >
> > Once I have this, we can send the reimbursement.
>
> ... and, as such, Walter has still not been reimbursed for his $1,389.29
> for travel to the Constructionalism 2016 conference.
>
> I really would appreciate if you'd either approve the expense, or
> indicate that it should not be paid, so I can give a definitive answer
> to the traveler about whether the reimbursement request will be paid.
>
> (I know that SLOBs tend to approve things via meetings, so you can just
> send a link to SLOBs minutes if it was approved at a meeting already.)
> --
> 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/
>

Hi Bradley Kuhn who does all the hard work behind SFConservancy Accounting,

Sorry I was away in Haiti when you wrote in March.  Your file
Sugar/Ledger/sugar.ledger correctly shows Walter Bender's $807.22
flight + expenses to Thailand's Constructionism 2016 = $1389.29 total.

If SL's Oversight Board was supposed to vote on this affirmatively per
SFConservancy policies, can you just clarify those policies,
particularly with many new board members since February 2nd 2016, so
that we're fully in compliance without confusion going forward?
If SL Board pre-approval of expenses or budgets are necessary and/or
wise then any particular suggestions for resolving this expeditiously
most appreciated.  Thank you greatly in advance for your time.

Aside: Caryl Bigenho and Dave Crossland have been working on a
Treasurer suggestion for Sugar Labs to possibly make such financial
clarity and promptness more of a priority for our community in future,
relevant later this spring if SL's Board chooses to act on this or similar,
but we are not quite there yet encoding norms of financial transparency/
responsiveness/intentionality that our community agrees on broadly,
and if so how we're going to get there:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc

> > Devin Ulibarri  traveled with me (I bought his plane ticket but he
> > will submit his other expenses separately).
>
> On another related matter, I have not received a trip report and expense
> report from Ulibarri.  Per instructions from Conservancy's Executive
> Director, Karen Sandler, on this matter, I have not processed the part
> of the Bender's reimbursement request but will do so as part of Devin's
> full expense report when it arrives.

I will presume Devin Ulibarri's Constructionism 2016 expenses ($787.31
flight + $903.08 Music Blocks/conf-related expenses = $1690.39 total)
approval process would follow the exact same process as you outline
for Walter's above, as soon as that's clarified.

Separately it seems Walter Bender misunderstood that SL's Board agreed
to pay Devin Ulibarri an additional $500 in compensation, above and
beyond Devin's travel expenses:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2015-\
12-17&oldid=96639

In fact, SL's Oversight Board requires 4 votes for all decisions as was
clarified immediately upon my joining SL's Board near the end of 2009,
generally to protect against the temptation to schedule meetings
around different voting factions, when quorum drifts etc, whatevs.

This requirement for 4 votes (majority of seats) was confirmed on
December 11th 2009, when the motion "SL is and should be a GNU/Linux
distributor" failed, receiving only 3 votes:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11
And again more recently on March 4th 2016:
http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2016-03-04T16:00:36#i_28624\
08

I have modified the 2015-12-17 records at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions to reflect the
correct and agreed-upon procedure (4 votes minimum, certainly that's
been the case since I joined SL's Board at the end of 2009).

Walter or others wishing to resubmit a motion to pay Devin Ulibarri
$500 in compensation, should feel free to do so (insofar as
SFConservancy Travel Policies permit retroactive financial approvals,
which is NOT something to encourage in future instances obviously, but
in these special circumstances it may obviously be necessary, with all
Board members voting their conscience per usual).

Sugar Labs needs to be a place where we learn from our human mistakes
WITHOUT recriminations going forward, when small debuggings/reviews
bring us closer to the goal, in keeping with our universal principles
(reflect,
iterate, collaborate, learn!)

Finally, Devin Ulibarri is a great person by absolutely all
appearances, who I don't happen to know, so I'd be remiss to explain
why I _personally_ abstained from voting during Dec 17th 2015's vote
(mine being 1 of 4 abstentions, alongside Daniel Francis, Chris Leonard,
Gonzalo Odiard) to pay him $500 compensation.  That reason is my
personal convictions around financial prudence.  My own opinion being
that $500 compensation for a 5-day conference is too high for Sugar
Labs to be paying _anybody_ at this current stage.  That caution is
strictly only my opinion however.  Four months later, with a very new
Board, it is far more important today that we look to the future
resolving all such matters forthrightly with everyone voting their clear
conscience (whatever motions/votes arise) honoring agreed-upon
procedures respectful of Software Freedom Conservancy requirements.

Sincere Respect and Thanks -- to Bradley and All,

Adam Holt
Sugar Labs Oversight Board Liaison to SFConservancy.org

CC'd to ieap at list.sugarlabs.org as there's a growing if not universal
community request for timely transparency and process clarity, around
vision/governance/finance (enforced by bylaws implicit across
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance but that too
needs to be clarified, as bylaws simply cannot be edited by random
passersby on a wiki, leaving the legally-binding version to guesswork).
Nonetheless identifying/organizing our legal nonprofit bylaws is not
a huge job in the end as outlined above.  Most important of all, if
everybody is civil about innocent human procedural mistakes, soon
to be resolved now that they are understood, Donors will also
increase their trust in the Sugar community as our organ of
deliberative forward movement -- catalyzing conscientious action
far beyond hype~

--
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160408/bcee6ffe/attachment-0001.html>