[IAEP] why do accountants prefer facts over inaccurate wikis, undocumented board votes & screaming matches?

[Adam Holt]

[1] The Software Freedom Conservancy has sent $1605.73 above and beyond
Samson's Nigeria-California $1583.34 flight costs ($3189.07 total).

As such the total SFC has transmitted for Samson Goddy's GSoC weekend in
the San Francisco area is now $3189.07

If in fact the $1605.73 (708+550+347.73) already transmitted is not enough
(above and beyond Samson's Nigeria-California $1583.34 = 1279.14+161.20+143
Port Harcourt-California flight costs) Samson Goddy is again asked to file
a public motion supporting and documenting why he needs more.

At age 17 Samson Goddy might not yet realize that accountants will never
accept ambiguity around double-spending of GSoC or any other funds.  It is
a lesson we each and all learn before we die, the final accounting for our
contributions, whether the world chooses to listen to accounting
professionals or not in our final resting place at the end of my life, and
at the end of all our lives.


[2] As the June 2017 historical record and 2017's entire numbering of
motions is incorrect/incomplete at
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions (it still fails to
mention that Samson Goddy was approved for up to $500 on June 12th,
conditional on his visiting France's Scratch conference:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2017-June/019870.html) I'd ask a
neutral 3rd party like Dave Crossland or Ombudsman Bert Freudenberg to fix
this, as edit wars at
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Decisions&action=history
regrettably do not move Sugar Labs forward.

Similarly on September 29th Laura Vargas appears to have accidentally made
things worse by changing the April 2017 historical record here, while
perhaps not understanding that all Sugar Labs motions must be resolved
within 1 week (168 hours):
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FDecisions&type=revision&diff=100892&oldid=100821


[3] So that we can all keep track of the number of board members who want
$500 or more and the private discussions on slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org that
prevent Sugar Labs ~138 other members (and the public) from understanding,
let this serve as a reminder that changing the historical record and
screaming matches on slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org [4] are not the way to
achieve thoughtful financial support for insider (or outsider!) projects.

The Worst possible precedent we could set is board members privately voting
institutional funds into each others' pockets.

The Best way to achieve this (in all cases) is a public board vote en plain
air.


[4] A profound thank you to Walter who powerfully intervened on Sunday
October 1st to scale back Samson's verbal assaults on other board members.
Samson's words were so shocking that I will not quote them here.  This was
completely unacceptable and Walter did the right thing by forcefully
putting an end to that; we can only hope that the stars begin to align in
2017 and this serious ongoing pattern of harassment please begins to
dissipate with a new dawn arising in coming months and years:

"For some of us, it is the season of forgiveness. Selfishness and
self-dealing, pettiness and small-thinking, arrogance and
self-aggrandizement are all easily forgiven. What is more difficult to
forgive is when members of this board engage in character assassination,
personal attacks, and question the motivation and goodwill of their
colleagues and fellow community members. This sort of behavior is poison to
our credibility as an oversight board and is seriously undermining the
cohesiveness of our community. I am not seeking consensus -- it is natural
and healthy for us to disagree -- but I am asking that you tone down the
rhetoric and show more respect to your peers and colleagues."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20171005/942ece4a/attachment.html>