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

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been
> approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved
> the spending unilaterally. But I cry "uncle". You and Caryl seem so
> convinced that we need an FM in the middle to approve things, I am willing
> to give it a try. Your passion carries the day. Let's see what the rest of
> the oversight board thinks.
>
>>
>> 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 :)
>>
>
So I read this article. to the degree to which I agree with the
recommendations at the end, it seems we are taking as many steps backward
as forward with the proposed motions.

(1) Delegation: We had delegated authority to the teams -- perhaps not
enough of them -- but now we are retracting that and putting authority in
an individual.
(2) Responsibility: We are removing responsibility for financial decision
making from those closest to the problems
(3) Distribution: We are going backwards on this front as well
(4) Rotation: The proposal is agnostic on this, but we should strive to do
more rotation on the team level.
(5) Allocation: I think we had it correct before, allocating to the teams.
(6) Diffusion of information: My hope is that the FM will help with this,
but it certainly is not a given.
(7) Equal access to resources: I am guessing that the FM position is
somehow supposed to address this issue, but I don't understand the
mechanics.

The bottom line is that what we have is a "failure to communicate." If the
primary role of the FM is to foster more communication, then +1. But it has
not been presented in that light.

-walter


>
> I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting.
>
> -walter
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20160603/827153dc/attachment.html>