[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] Trip Advisor grant statement of work

[Adam Holt]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Adam and the SFC may think these funds are 100% fungible, but I think we
> have an ethical obligation towards the goals of the proposal, which Chris
> has nicely summarized.
>

Indeed, that's precisely what SFConservancy.org explained...Scalia's
"original intent" and "spirit of the original proposal" etc
notwithstanding: as Walter has explained in the past, the spirit of the
$120,000 TripAdvisor Grant was to have 50% dedicated to Turtle Art and 50%
dedicated to translation -- but adjustments can be made en route where
prudent decision-making requires it.


> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Laura Vargas <laura at somosazucar.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Specific info that would help, includes:
>> >
>> > - Grant Time frame
>> > - Is there a Max- Min Budget / Project / Language
>> > - Are there activities/projects/languages restrictions
>> > - Are there fixed rates for translators
>> > - Are there fixed rates for logics roles
>> > - Required Documentation
>> > - And any other relevant information to help comunity members formulate
>> > their translations projects within this logic.
>>
>> Laura,
>>
>> I do not believe such details would be contained in the grant itself,
>> but I must admit that I don't think I ever asked for or saw the
>> TripAdvisor grant paperwork.  Chances are it is not very informative.
>>
>> What I think is perhaps most relevant to your request for information
>> is the attached document which is a template that was developed by the
>> SFC for the purpose of enabling L10n proposals to be made and
>> definitively approved for payment by our fiscal sponsor.  This is
>> really where the "rubber meets the road" (a car enthusiast's term for
>> where the action is or where things actually happen).  Read the
>> attached, I think you'll get the general flavor.
>>
>> To your detailed questions I will try to provide a little more color,
>> noting that while I am not a SLOB any more, and so only speak for
>> myself, but I have been engaged in the L10n/i18n community in various
>> capacities for a while.
>>
>> > - Grant Time frame
>>
>> I think the timeline in the attached document is one year, that is not
>> so much to restrict a successful and productive project from going
>> forward longer than that by mutual agreement, but to protect
>> SugarLabs/SFC from a non-performing contractor so the undispensed
>> funds might be uncommitted and reallocated elsewhere on a timely
>> basis, if needed.
>>
>> > - Is there a Max- Min Budget / Project / Language
>>
>> No Min that I know of, but you'd have to ask, I don't think this
>> should be treated as a "petty cash" fund.  Max is set by funds
>> available and approval received.  Project and Language to be described
>> in the Proposal.
>>
>> > - Are there activities/projects/languages restrictions
>>
>> So far the only executed (or proposed and un-executed) agreements were
>> for work on L10n on Sugar-related strings on our Pootle instance, so
>> we could track deliverables easily.
>>
>> At one point there was discussion of payment for development new
>> needed glibc locales committed upstream (that is a requirement for
>> Sugar to use the language), but that came after I had committed the
>> ayc_PE, quz-PE, quy_PE, niu_NU, niu_NZ locales, split the pap_AN
>> locale into pap_CW and pap_AW, rework of ht_HT, etc., etc.so there was
>> no executed agreement, just discussion in principle.  I wouldn't
>> morally oppose recompense for finally committing to glibc the agr_PE
>> draft locale that I sent to Sebastian for testing (thanks for the
>> improvements, and yes we will get it into glibc in due time), but I
>> haven't pushed to formalize any paperwork, so there isn't any to
>> share.
>>
>> > - Are there fixed rates for translators
>>
>> Not really, expectation would be averaging roughly at current internet
>> published rates (or somewhat better for the rarer indigenous
>> languages), maybe something in the 15-30 cent/word range, but
>> milestone based, not piece-work.  I think that is an important point
>> to keep in mind.
>>
>> > - Are there fixed rates for logics roles
>>
>> Nothing specified, propose something and justify it to the SLOBS/SFC.
>> I've drawn no remuneration for serving in an oversight capacity (yes
>> the strings came in, yes they LOOK like the language requested, yes
>> they pass error checks, etc.)..  Again, I think the desire is to be
>> milestone-based, not hourly rates.
>>
>> > - Required Documentation
>>
>> Besides a fully negotiated/approved proposal and executed version of
>> the attached template adjusted accordingly, there is also a small one
>> page copyright assignment document needed from each contributor, Just
>> detail stuff, I could look for a copy of that somewhere, but it is not
>> interesting or particularly negotiable, just a pro forma thing.
>>
>> > - And any other relevant information to help comunity members formulate
>> > their translations projects within this logic.
>>
>>  I'm striking out on my own here, but I don't think we want to pay for
>> things that volunteers will do if we are doing our job as a project.
>> Payment should be reserved for areas where there are substantial
>> barriers that could be overcome with just a little grease on the
>> wheels.  What do I mean by this?  I would not want to see us pay for
>> Spanish or French strings, but I might be very happy to hear that the
>> SLOBS have dedicated funds to speed up Awajun or start Shipibo-Conibo
>> L10n (if proposed).
>>
>> To a certain extent, part of that calculation also includes a "target
>> audience" of users waiting and people willing to get the work to them
>> in already being in pace (e.g. Peruvian and Mexican indigenous
>> languages even potentially smaller ones, the more widely used native
>> languages of Oceania and Africa (e.g. Madaqascar), Haitian Kreyol,
>> etc., might be good investments whereas Klingon or Esperanto might
>> not).  That increases the potential for realizable impact.  I
>> personally think new glibc development passes this test by virtue of
>> being a one-time thing that has potentially global impact wherever
>> Linux is used, as well as being a requirement for Sugar's i18n/L10n
>> process.
>>
>>  Anyway, those are my own thoughts on the matter and I think they are
>> pretty reasonable, but it up to the SLOBs to make such calls on a
>> case-by-case basis.
>>
>>  cjl
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> --
> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel>
> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel>
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel>http://unleashkids.org !
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160224/2e657117/attachment-0001.html>