[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Walter Bender]

As Adam has pointed out, this motion has failed to pass. It seems that
there is some support of the idea of offering at least a portion of the
GSoC stipend to mentors who need/request the funds, but the form of the
current motion, putting the authority into the hands of the mentors
themselves does not have adequate support. Perhaps someone can craft a
motion that would be better received by the oversight board.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:

> On May 7, 2016 3:33 PM, "Lionel Laské" <lionel.laske at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Disagree.
> >
> > Thought I understand that 500$ is lot of money for some people, I think
> that GSoC is also a way for SugarLabs to raise money. Because we don't ask
> for an annual fee to member (like other association, for example OLPC
> France), it's even the only way to hope for a regular contribution.
>
> Indeed, Google chose to pay "mentoring organizations" rather mentors, for
> exactly the reasons Lionel lays out.  If Google wanted to pay GSoC stipends
> instead, it would have done exactly that, using the word stipend, and
> incurring the very significant accounting/managerial/compliance costs of
> managing such stipends.  Google (GSoC) did Not make that choice, though
> conceivably in future Google should consider international transactions
> direct to Mentors?
>
I think it is a stretch to assert that the reason Google chose to pay the
"mentoring organizations" is because they didn't intend to pay stipends. I
won't presume to try to second guess Google's intentions, but in fact they
do refer to the organization payments as "mentor stipends". And I can
imagine that bypassing the paperwork associated with making transactions
with individual mentors would be a strong motivation to pass the fund
through the parent organization.

> Until that distant day, mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently
> recognized, just like the mentoring organization is insufficiently
> recognized, in the constructionist ethos especially we are all learning ;-)
>
> In conclusion, I abstain because my own opinion is that a $500 pass-thru
> to the mentor shows a lack of respect for the organization/ops backstopping
> of our overall *joint* efforts ~ in the same way that $500 to the
> organization shows a similar lack of respect for certain particularly
> dedicated mentors.
>
I don't see how the proposal to pay mentors stipends in any way shows lack
of respect to either Sugar Labs, its volunteer community, or the mentors
themselves.

> Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
> organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
> low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
> Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.
>

In fact, whereas most of the mentors were not intending to take the money,
the outcome would have been even more generous to Sugar Labs than the plan
you are proposing.

> Lionel's warning should not be ignored, if anyone cares about
> inter-generational leadership: in the apprentice system the parents of
> mentees who can afford it would very happily Pay Sugar Labs (Mentoring
> Organization), much like users of Wikipedia happily Pay annual donations,
> much like members of OLPC France happily Pay for something they believe
> in...  (What other learning economies surround us, that we may not even
> realize??)
>

I have volunteered time and money to Sugar Labs over the years and plan to
continue to do so. But I think it is a mistake to assume that every mentor
has the wherewithal to do the same. Community members already "pay for
something they believe in" by donating their time, expertise, et al. to
Sugar Labs. Not everyone has the financial resources of those of us who
live in North America or Western Europe.

> > Best regards from France.
> >
> >         Lionel.
> >
> >
> > 2016-05-07 1:49 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the
> motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to allow the mentors participating in
> Google Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as
> they see fit. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.
> >>
> >> Background: Every year, Google provides mentoring organizations with a
> stipend for the mentors. In our first year of participation in the program,
> Sugar Labs mentors agreed to have the stipend directed to the Sugar Labs
> general funds. We have followed the same procedure in subsequent years.
> This year, however, several mentors asked if they could have access to the
> stipends (which are allocated per student internship). We discussed this at
> the meeting and agreed that it would be appropriate to offer these funds as
> compensation and thanks to the mentors for their time and expertise (there
> were no objections raised). We need to vote on this however, since the
> funds are given to the mentoring organization, not the individual mentors.
> >>
> >> Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation
> for a vote on the following motion. (Note that since I am a mentor, I think
> I must recuse myself from the vote.)
> >>
> >> Motion: to allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
> disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.
> >>
> >> regards.
> >>
> >> -walter
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Walter Bender
> >> Sugar Labs
> >> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SLOBs mailing list
> >> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
>



-- 
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/20160512/61747f2d/attachment.html>