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

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> OK….
>
> It has been asked why do we need to have incidental expenses under a
> certain amount approved by the Financial Manager (and larger amounts
> approved by the board).  Up until now, some people have spent funds and
> asked for permission to do so later. While most of these expenses were
> legitimate and would probably have been approved right away, we have seen
> incidences of reluctance of the SLOB to approve some expeditures that were
> made without prior consulting. Don't ask for specific examples. If you want
> an example, read through past SLOB meetings and you will find them.
>

I have looked and not found these copious examples you have often referred
to.

>
> Almost every orgainzation I know of, be it public, private, for profit, or
> non profit has a proceedure like this to handle small expenses without
> having to bring them to a full vote of their boards. Why would this be?
> What are the advantages of having a procedute for "petty cash" type
> expenses?
>

We have existing mechanisms in the discretion afforded to team/project
leaders in the community already, although we should perhaps expand upon
that list.

>
> Here are just a few reasons:
>
> *Efficiency:* Being able to spend needed small amounts of money without
> full SLOB approval at a monthly meeting allows things to move ahead
> smoothly and reduces the "clutter" at meetings.
>

Again, in theory we already have this for infrastructure, i18n, and turtle
workshops. I am open to expanding the list on a targeted basis. For
example, I don't recall our ever giving Sean/marketing such latitude,
although it world certainly make sense.

>
> *Flexibility:* If meeting were weekly rather than monthly there might be
> no need for this proposal. However, with a once a month meeting with an
> over-full agenda, there is no flexibility to move quickly on opportunities
> that come up.
>

See response to "Efficiency."


>
> *Economy:* money may be saved by getting a "second opinion" on an
> expenditure. The Financial Manager may know of sources that are less
> expensive or of other ways to do something that will cost less. We saw this
> when Samson got help with his proposal for expenses for his translation
> project. It could apply to any expense. We need to be good stewards of
> SugarLabs funds.
>

Your example is not relevant as it was a major proposal, not a petty cash
outlay. Do you have any real-world examples?

>
> *Compliance: *The Software Freedom Foundation wants more accountability
> re: spending of SugarLabs funds. This will help achieve that goal. This is,
> perhaps, the most important reason listed here.
>

In my experience, the Conservancy seems to want full board approval for
every transaction regardless of whatever internal rules we establish. I am
curious as to how we will circumvent that here. In any case, compliance is
orthogonal to approval as far as I can see. Can you give me an example of
where it is not?

>
> I could probably go on with more and I'm sure many of you know of other
> good reasons that we could add but, I think these are excellent arguments
> in favor of allowing small amounts of $Y with approval of the Financial
> Manager and reporting monthly to the SLOB. (with Y set by SLOB and revised
> as seen fit).
>
> While I am in favor of the creation of the FM position in order to
facilitate relations with the Conservancy, I see the insertion of the FM
into the mix as mostly more rather than less red tape for purposes you are
proposing.

regards.

-walter


> Cheers!
> CAryl
>
>
>


-- 
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/20160602/54b43fbd/attachment.html>