<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> [ as per <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs#Information">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs#Information</a> I am sharing this information with the community because it needs not be confidential ]. Dear Bradley, I thank you for taking the time in these holidays to write to us in such detail about our request. I'm providing the documentation available at the time about Puno Pilot Project including a brief, budget and the draft contract between Escuelab Puno and the Municipality of Puno. Here is an draft of the project as documented by our team: <a href="http://pe.sugarlabs.org/go/Proyecto_Piloto_Hexoquinasa">http://pe.sugarlabs.org/go/Proyecto_Piloto_Hexoquinasa</a> Here is a draft of a budget: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/hexoquinasa-budget">http://tinyurl.com/hexoquinasa-budget</a> please note it's in Nuevos Soles ( <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> 1PEN ~ 0.37USD) Here is a draft of the agreement: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mkVIjfHBMLq_Kzkb3bASMa7EAn48WsQfy8N5ccHOwsA/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mkVIjfHBMLq_Kzkb3bASMa7EAn48WsQfy8N5ccHOwsA/edit</a> I am attaching these documents, however I don't think this should be necessary. Sugar Labs should be able to acknowledge the work SomosAzucar.Org has been doing the past 3 years. After all this time we've found a sustainability model for working in deploying Sugar. In this project, 6 members of our team would be assigned a budget of 1500 soles (557USD) for expenses. This will barely cover costs. If anyone thinks this is this is unfair or a conflict of interest I would like to learn why. I see no shame in this, but am honored to be sustaining 6 families while extending Sugar and Free Software adoption and development. This recognition is requested by the Municipality of Puno to certify we are valid articulators with the Sugar Labs community, because this is part of the role we're proposing for ourselves. Please you could maybe rewrite this letter in a way that does not bind the SFC but recognizes our work? Thank you and happy solstice, Sebastian El 24/12/11 14:52, Bradley M. Kuhn escribió: <blockquote cite="mid:87sjk9rbls.fsf_-_@ebb.org" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">[ Trimming recipients list to SLOBs and Conservancy staff only. ] As the SLOBs are aware, Conservancy is putting substantial staff time into investigating the issue how Local Labs can be formalized, and indeed, *if* they actually need to be formalized for various types of work. We're also engaging with the SLOBs regularly at your meetings to help work through how the FSA works. Conservancy is committed to continuing proactive work with you to help Sugar Labs can get done what it seeks to get done around the world to advance the Sugar Labs software itself, and also to educate about and advocate for its use. All these activities are within Conservancy's mission, but we have to take care that all IRS 501(c)(3) rules and regulations are followed as we carry out this work. I'm truly sorry that as a tiny non-profit with very limited resources, Conservancy can't work as rapidly as any of us would like. As most of you know, Karen Sandler (who previously provided copious amounts of pro bono work to Conservancy to complement my full-time on Conservancy work) moved on to the position of GNOME Foundation Executive Director earlier this year. Last summer, I clamored to fund-raise for Conservancy to fund Tony's position, who thankfully joined Conservancy in late September. Since then, I've made Sugar Labs' "Local Labs issues" a high priority for Tony's time, but he's one person, and Conservancy's whole full-time staff is now only two. (While that's "double" what it used to be; it's still not very many. :) We will sort out what's possible, and propose ideas of how we can do activities everywhere in the world, but this will take time to develop, especially given that we have 26 other member projects as well as other non-profit administratrivia to take care of, too. We'll keep you apprised throughout the process and either Tony or I will make every effort to attend SLOBs meeting indefinitely to be available for questions, comments, and explanations. An idea we've already proposed at the last SLOBs meeting remains possible: if a clear project proposal can be written up, that has a budget, externally verifiable deliverables, evaluation of such a proposal can proceed immediately. Once such a proposal is in hand, we (SLOBs and Conservancy) can review it together and verify that it fits Conservancy's charitable purpose. If it does, we can together (hopefully) approve it, fundraise for it, and enact it. This can be done for any group within the Sugar Labs community [0] at any time; they need not even be a group that you previously informally designated as Local Lab, even. With regard to Somos Azucar, Conservancy remains unsure why a formal certification document of affiliation is necessary. We've seen no formal proposal for work, nor what deliverables might come from that work. This, coupled with the insistence that the formalization be rapidly enacted without more details provided, merely leaves me and Tony confused. Conservancy has had the same message for months: we need to collect more information before we decide how to handle the formalization structure of Local Labs, but we can proceed with funded projects in the meantime if the process described above is followed. Meanwhile, unfortunately, I'm sad to report a good part of our time we *would* have spent in the last month or so on that task has been eaten up by conversations about whether or not a Somos Azucar can quickly be issued a formal charter. Meanwhile, even if the SLOBs vote to approve the currently proposed statement, it cannot be signed on behalf of Sugar Labs without Conservancy's approval. Sugar Labs delegated authority for this sort of thing in the FSA to Conservancy, in exchange for getting a formal structure and the many other benefits Conservancy provides. Since not all the current SLOBs were involved when Sugar Labs joined Conservancy, I'll reiterate what Karen explained back when Sugar Labs joined: Conservancy is a very tight-knit and "hands-on" fiscal sponsor, and that's just part of the way we operate. It's possible to have other sorts of fiscal sponsors, but Conservancy chose this way of operating because it allows Conservancy to offer more services (and more protection to projects) because it has such a close affiliation with, and, frankly, control over, its projects. The trade-off for that is autonomy of the project. We delegate back all autonomy on all software development and documentation issues, but I also don't blame anyone for wanting more autonomy. It comes down to a question of whether or not the benefits of being in Conservancy are worth the lack of autonomy. We believe that they are, and hope the current SLOBs do as well. And, again, I do apologize that we don't have as much time as we'd like to move on the formalization of Local Labs quickly, but we hope you'll bear with us as we continue our research. We understand fully that Sugar Labs is a global operation that needs this, and we want to provide it. We're just too small to do it with the great speed that is currently being demanded. [0] Please note: there are very strict rules for USA 501(c)(3) non-profits regarding governing bodies, such as SLOBs, giving themselves the benefit of paid work. Therefore, if anyone from the SLOBs is involved in one of these proposals, I want to warn you ahead of time that there will be delays for any such proposals, since Tony and I will need to research any inurement, private benefit, or conflict of interest issues. At the very least, anyone who would benefit from a given decision would be conflicted out of voting on the issue. </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>