[IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2016 at 10:17, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess I don't really understand what you mean by functional vs
> divisional in the case of SL.
>

Its about accounting more than anything else; in a divisional org, each
division has its own "Profits and Losses" statements, but in a functional
org, there is only one.


> The teams are functional and are the people in the community closest to
> the issues they are dealing with.
>

Sure!!! :) I'm not saying anything is dysfunctional; the word 'functional'
is used in the context of org theory in a very specific 'technical' way.


> Giving Bernie the ability to run to Microcenter to buy a connector to keep
> the servers running makes sense. Asking Bernie to speak with Person X to
> ask permission to do the same makes no sense. Having Bernie submit receipts
> to Person X to submit to the Conservancy makes sense.
>

I agree with all that, and would add: Having Bernie submit receipts to the
Conservancy makes no sense.

The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak
with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that
Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry
about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it
directly.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160602/78f25371/attachment.html>