[IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 115

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

I posted no motion on June 4. According to standard rules of order, a 
motion must be 'moved' by a member of the Board. Making a comment is not 
a motion.

Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:00 PM, iaep-request at lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
> Send IAEP mailing list submissions to
> 	iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	iaep-request at lists.sugarlabs.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	iaep-owner at lists.sugarlabs.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of IAEP digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder (Dave Crossland)
>     2. Re: Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting
>        (Dave Crossland)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:47:55 -0400
> From: Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>
> To: Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net>
> Cc: IAEP SugarLabs <iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>, sugar-devel
> 	<sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEozd0zPjw_SF9_tKWN2Zhu82oq75NXboBzFCnJFR_JUzGHtPA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 30 June 2016 at 06:56, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net> wrote:
>> I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his
>> arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he been
>> paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report to
>> include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was the
>> first milestone met (setup) and payment made?
> Chris, I would also like to see any and all material you have prepared
> for the blog :)
>
>> I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 'month'
>> with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, and ending
>> balance.
> Me too :)
>
>> I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.
>>
>> My objections are:
>>
>> (1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check and
>> send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 'donate' option
>> to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been implemented.
> I do not think that SLOB should be bothered with motions about which
> methods of donation are permitted, and which are currently
> implemented. That is a matter for Conservancy to decide and its Member
> Projects should allow for funds to be accepted to their earmarked
> funds with any of those methods; and it is up to the project's members
> to implement the methods.
>
>> (2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as know
>> this goal has not been set.
> I agree that  fund-raising activity should have a target amount.
>
> You posted a motion on June 4th:
>
> "to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to
> enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or other
> means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the Financial
> Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will
> show progress in donations toward the goal."
>
> This was not seconded.
>
> Lionel then called for motions to be minimised.
>
> I therefore expect to carry out fund raising activities without making
> motions to SLOBs for approval, and without a Finance Manager
> appointed, since it seems no one at SLOBs is interested in giving
> meaningful feedback on either motions about fund raising or about the
> FM position.
>
> I will take into account feedback offered to me by other members.
>
>> (3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an amount
>> they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to identify
>> themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a specfied amount.
>> A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal for the year, members
>> should try to donate at least $50 although donations in any amount are
>> welcome' would be acceptable.
> Sounds good!
>
>> (4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners or
>> associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations
>> available.
> Sure
>
>> The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable without
>> clarification.
> Cool, when I get there I'll let the community know
>
>> According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the Financial
>> Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed motion.
> No, we haven't heard from her. I have now taken the liberty of posting
> the 2 motions with my suggestions which she did not review.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:54:15 -0400
> From: Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>
> To: Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Adam Holt <holt at unleashkids.org>, samson goddy
> 	<samsongoddy at hotmail.com>, José Miguel García <logobot at gmail.com>,
> 	Claudia Urrea <callaurrea at gmail.com>, Lionel Laske
> 	<lionel at olpc-france.org>, "tony_anderson at usa.net"
> 	<tony_anderson at usa.net>, Tony Anderson <tony at olenepal.org>,
> 	"iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org" <iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEozd0zu4HAgZ7SAEjKcGb2N4=jvsDHj+8idVk3+NvHugFsc5A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 30 June 2016 at 10:57, Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> P.S. Re clause #2: there may be times when the financial data from the SFC
>> is not available at a meeting. The first item in the clause allows for
>> making updates and corrections from the previous meeting's data if it
>> differs.
> The motion I just posted also allows for this.
>
>> I strongly suggest this be the starting version at the meeting tomorrow.
> Do you need to repost it to the SLOBs list in order for it to be a valid motion?
>
>>   Confirmation of the accuracy of the previous month's report according to
>> the SFC
>>   Balance at the beginning of the month preceding the meeting
>>   Expenses during the month
>>   Income received during the month
>>   Balance at the end of the month
> How does that work for a meeting like the one tomorrow falling on the
> 1st of the month; does it mean that the FM is obligated to finalise
> the report in the less than 24 hours before the meeting?
>
>> 3. The Finance Manager arranges for the Conservancy to make any
>>   disbursements authorized by the Board. The Finance Manager
>>   will maintain a 'petty cash' fund of $200 to pay for miscellaneous
>>   expenditures between meetings.
> Does that mean that if two requests for funds under $200 occur in 1
> month, the 2nd can not be paid until either the next month begins or a
> SLOB motion to approve it?
>