[IAEP] [SLOB] (1) travel advances and (2) external programs

[Sebastian Silva]

Hi Walter,

To your questions, the following ones are already resolved:

> * To what extent should the community be engaged?
> * What are the requirements for communication with the oversight
board? With the community?
> * Are there restrictions on how funds will be used (above and beyond
the ones imposed by the SFC)?
> * Will the project administrator have to get SLOB approval for
spending those funds? For each expenditure or just the overall budget?
> * Is there any expectation of financial reporting?

Please review (again) the following principles (pasted after my message)
which are *the main reason *I joined Sugar Labs, copied from the main
wiki page <https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs> that describes
Sugar Labs.

They are very clear with regard to what the expectations are for
*everyone *here. It is not just expected that we /report /when working
in the name of Sugar Labs/. /It is expected that we /work *in plain
view*./ It is expected that we don't have private communications unless
we absolutely must. It also sets the expectation that goods belonging to
Sugar Labs are properly accounted for and up to date.

Unless you disagree with our organizational principles, it would seem
like a distraction of everyone's time to raise the questions above.

Regards,

Sebastian


      https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs


      Principles

In order for Sugar to be successful, it needs the participation of a
large number of people who share common goals while maintaining
independence, so that each participant has the ability to act
independently. For these reasons, Sugar Labs subscribes to the
principles described here
<http://flors.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/the-paradigm-of-the-open-organization/>,
which are the author's own translation of an original text in Spanish.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20050317231119/http://interactors.coop/organizacionabierta>


        Identity

  * Clear mission – Fully disclosed objectives.
  * Declared commitments – Affinities and aversions explained.
  * Declared outside connections – Relationships with other
    organizations explicitly listed.


        Structure

  * Horizontal organization – Teams and facilitators work on
    responsibilities and agreements.
  * Identified contributors – Who is who, people are reachable.
  * Clear responsibilities – Who is in charge of what.
  * Activities described – All of the ongoing work is acknowledged.

See Wiki Structure
<https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Wiki_Team/Guide/Wiki_Structure> for a
guide to how the wiki models Sugar Labs' structure.


        Operation

  * Open participation – Anybody can access the information and get a
    first responsibility.
  * Meritocracy – Responsibilities are acquired (or lost) based on one's
    skills, results, and contributors’ support.
  * Voluntary (non-)engagement – Nobody is forced to be involved or to
    keep responsibilities.


        Information

  * Regular reports – Reported activities and future plans allow
    monitoring and participation.
  * Information accessible – Even internal operational information is
    available by default.

        We try to operate /*en plein air
        <https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Archive/Current_Events/2009-06-10#En_plein_air>*/.

  * Explicit confidentiality – It is explained what matters are
    confidential, why, and who can access them.


        Goods

  * Economic model – Feasibility and sustainability plans are exposed.
    (Please see/contribute to the discussion here
    <https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Funding>.)
  * Resources – Inventory of items detailing who contributed what and why.
  * Public accounts – It’s clear where the money comes from and where it
    goes.
  * A special thanks
    <https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Thank_You> to our
    contributors.



On 18/09/17 14:57, Walter Bender wrote:
> My apologies in advance for the length of this email. The lists have
> been overwhelmed of late with discussions of procedure and as a
> consequence, it feels as if technical and pedagogical discussions have
> seemingly been marginalized.
>
> ---
>
> I. TRAVEL ADVANCES
>
> We had two topics of discussion we were going to consider between the
> monthly meetings of the Sugar Labs oversight board, both of which
> seemed to have stalled out.
>
> The first topic was in regards to the process and conditions under
> which we would consider travel advances. I raise this issue now
> because it impacts Samson, who needs to prepare his trip to Google
> well in advance of our next meeting.
>
> Laura stated the obvious in her wiki post, essentially: (1) ask the
> oversight board and (2) if approved, the oversight board would ask the
> SFC [1]. But this formulation doesn't offer much guidance. What are
> the criteria for the decision? I had written up some details in the
> wiki -- which were subsequently deleted -- to try to address what I
> think are the questions someone would reasonably be asking of us.
>
>
>
> (0) Before asking for a travel advance, please consider the following
> questions:
>
> * Is the travel on behalf of Sugar Labs?
> * Has the trip been approved by the Sugar Labs oversight board or some
> designated representative of the board?
> * Do the travel plans comply with the SFC travel policy? [2] 
> * Do you need to have a ticket purchased on your behalf?
> * Do you need cash for local travel and/or per diem expenses?
>
> (1) Anyone traveling on behalf of Sugar Labs may request a travel
> advance by sending a written request to the oversight board <slobs AT
> lists.sugarlabs.org <http://lists.sugarlabs.org>>. Be sure to include
> the reason for your request, the amount requested, the anticipated
> dates of travel, and answers to the questions above.
>
> (2) The oversight board will discuss the request and may ask for
> clarification. The criteria for approval include:
>
> * availability of funds
> * ???
>
> It may take the board ''up to one week'' to reach its decision, so
> please make your request as far in advance as possible.
>  
> The deliberations of the board will either be published on a  public
> email list [3] or in a meeting log [4]. The decision itself will be
> documented on [5].
>  
> (3) If the travel advance is approved (by at least four board members)
> then our liaison with the SFC will communicate the decision on behalf
> of the applicant. Note that approval by the SL oversight board does
> not guarantee that the SFC will approve the travel advance. (Past
> experience suggests that they are more likely to approve the
> prepurchase of a ticket than a cash advance.) The time-frame for the
> SFC varies widely and is outside of our control, so again, it is
> recommended that you make your request well in advance.
>
>
>
> I think it is imperative that the oversight board define criteria for
> determining whether or not a travel advance be considered. For
> example, we have been inconsistent in regard to travel advances where
> a visa is required. We made no contingency on Ignacio's request for a
> travel advance to attend the Google Code-in (GCI) summit, where as we
> turned down Samson's request for an advance to get a visa to attend
> the Google Summer of Code (GSoC) summit. I would ask for more
> clarification as to if and when we consider an advance for the visa
> expenses to be acceptable.
>
> Also, if a group or team (e.g. the GSoC mentors) decides to send
> someone to a workshop or meeting and has the cash in hand (Google
> funding in this case), are there further criteria that the oversight
> board need consider? If so what?
>
> ---
>
> II. EXTERNAL PROGRAMS
>
> The second topic of discussion is in regards to the process and
> guidelines by which community members engage in external activities on
> behalf of Sugar Labs. The case in point is GCI. We have been
> participating in GCI for for the past five years (since 2012) and
> every year, I have asked the board for permission to participate. But
> once granted that permission, I have taken it upon myself to organize
> our application, recruit mentors, solicit projects, and administer the
> program. I've engaged the community along the way, holding public
> meeting and utilizing the wiki extensively. I think this has worked
> out well. I was prepared to proceed along the same lines again this
> year, but given the heated climate on the board regarding process, I
> thought we should clarify our guidelines first [6].
>
> I raise this topic now as we will need a head start on our GCI
> application before the next scheduled meeting.
>
> As per above, what are the expectations for someone who wants to
> organize a project on behalf of Sugar Labs?
>
>
>
> (0) Before asking for permission to engage in an external activity on
> behalf of Sugar Labs, please consider the following questions:
>
> * To what extent does the project have to align with the Sugar Labs
> mission?
> * Is the project Free/Libre?
> * Will the project be self-funding or does it require funding from
> Sugar Labs?
> * What are your qualifications for administering the program?
> * What involvement from the community is required to make the project
> a success?
> * Is there any risk to the Sugar Labs brand if the project is not
> successful?
> * [YOUR QUESTION HERE]
>
> (2) The oversight board will discuss the request and may ask for
> clarification. The criteria for approval include:
>
> [WE NEED TO CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO DEFINE THE CRITERIA
> AND TO SET EXPECTATIONS]
> * Who can run a project on behalf of Sugar Labs?
> * Are there restrictions on the nature of the project?
> * To what extent should the community be engaged?
> * What are the requirements for communication with the oversight
> board? With the community?
> * Are there restrictions on how funds will be used (above and beyond
> the ones imposed by the SFC)?
> * Will the project administrator have to get SLOB approval for
> spending those funds? For each expenditure or just the overall budget?
> * Is there any expectation of financial reporting?
> * Is the new initiative redundant with or in conflict with any
> existing programs?
> * Does it require time and commitments from the community that we
> cannot credibly fulfill?
> * How do we resolve conflicts, such as when more than one community
> member wants to administer the same program on behalf of Sugar Labs?
>
> It may take the board ''up to one week'' to reach its decision, so
> please make your request as far in advance as possible.
>  
> The deliberations of the board will either be published on a public
> email list [3] or in a meeting log [4]. The decision itself will be
> documented on [5].
>  
> (3) If the reuqest to engage in an external program on behalf of Sugar
> Labs is approved (by at least four board members) then our liaison
> with the SFC will communicate the decision on behalf of the applicant.
> Note that approval by the SL oversight board does not guarantee that
> the SFC will approve the engagement. The time-frame for the SFC varies
> widely and is outside of our control, so again, it is recommended that
> you make your request well in advance.
>
> If there is any contract involved, e.g, signing of a contract, letter
> of intent, etc., the SFC will need to do this on behalf of Sugar Labs.
> Please be sure to pass any such material to our liaison to the SFC for
> processing.
>
>
>
> These questions and procedures may seem abstract, but they have come
> up again and again in past programs I have been involved in. For
> example, when I wrote the Trip Advisor grant, I ran the proposal past
> the SFC and SLOB before I submitted it, including the budget. And I
> asked and was granted permission from the oversight board to
> administer the program as per the proposal and budget. And yet I have
> had to have every allocation of funds -- for travel to workshops and
> for translations -- approved individually as well. To me this has been
> onerous, but it that is the level of oversight the board requires, I
> accept it. But lets please be explicit and consistent about our
> requirements and expectations.
>
> Another example is GCI 2017. While I have been the one initiating the
> program every year, and brought up the subject again this year, I
> delayed asking for a motion to approve our participation in
> anticipation of our establishing guidelines for such requests [6]. In
> the meantime, another board member proposed a motion that we
> participate, which, as expected, passed. (I raised the issue of
> guidelines when casting my vote.) What I didn't expect was that this
> same board member would unilaterally begin community engagement for
> the program, with no consultation with the team that had been running
> it five years in a row. [7] Is it anything goes? Or do we have some
> process by which the community members who have been running a program
> on behalf of Sugar Labs are expected to be consulted?
>
> I would like to resolve these questions soon as we have a lot of work
> to do if we are going to make a successful application to GCI.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> ---
>
> [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Procedures (Note: it would make
> sense to move this page to a subpage in the Governance section of the
> wiki.)
> [2]
> https://github.com/conservancy/policies/blob/master/Travel/conservancy-travel-policy.txt
> travel policy
> [3] https://lists.sugarlabs.org
> [4] https://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings
> [5] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions
> [6] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2017-09-01 
> [7] In #sugar on irc.freenode.net <http://irc.freenode.net> <kaametza>
> I would like to ask everybody to start thinking in task-ideas for the
> Code In this year
>
>
> -- 
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170919/3bdbf0b7/attachment-0001.html>