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

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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"?
>

Right. Bernie can go ahead and make the purchase on the assumption that it
is reasonable and will be approved.

If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he
would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending,
he's out of pocket.


> 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?
>

The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add
another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a
'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small
expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally structured
role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending.

If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more structure, I
recommend a close reading of http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm -
I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in
flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160602/22a9d25d/attachment.html>