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

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Part of this seems like a very silly discussion on this day and age. If,
> as in Walter's example, Bernie needs to spend $Y to keep things running he
> can simply send a text message to the FM. No big deal!
>
> And if the FM happens to be available and responses. I ask yet again, what
problem are we solving?

-walter



> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This last statement makes no sense to me.  Bernie "does not" need to ask
> permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"? Or is the intention to
> *add* another person separate from any concrete goals within the
> organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If the latter, what
> problem are we solving?
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160602/2a38ccdc/attachment.html>