<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi Adam!</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 April 2016 at 15:15, Adam Holt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:holt@laptop.org" target="_blank">holt@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div>What level of granularity is appropriate I don't know; this can be worked out if community consensus emerges. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the Treasurer is on a short leash, and if the level is too much or too little, the SLOBs can let them know and if next month it isn't corrected, the Treasurer office will be empty ;)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div>SFConservancy.org provides extensive details (sometimes after a couple months, when there is a data-entry backlog) but they do not provide such data in publishable or even broadly understandable form -- to those who do not have financial/accounting expertise. Unless SL chooses to cancel its relationship with SFC, and send the 10% of all funds to another financial/legal umbrella non-profit who provide similar services more to our liking. Others may disagree, but as far as I can tell this is neither likely nor advisable!</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think SFC is, despite lovingly barbering the ledger-cli yak (<a href="http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2005/03/05/yak-shaving.html">http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2005/03/05/yak-shaving.html</a>) the best financial home for SL. </div><div><br></div><div>However, I have some reservations about Ledger. Perhaps the Sugar "Finance" Activity could be used ;) <a href="http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4040">http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4040</a><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>- Are we so sure detailed/monthly reporting is the best thing for Sugar Labs, when SL Board meetings have not been monthly over many recent years? </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think <a href="https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes">https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes</a> is tooooo bad :) </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div> (It's entirely possible monthly is an option, I'm just asking if SL is willing to pay compliance costs, or conversely are we just fantasizing/bikeshedding about Transparency arriving from God, asking others to do our dirty work for us for free...a well-known pattern leading to well-known results.)</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I might be totally wrong here, but it seems that in the past not much money was spent by Sugar Labs. That being the case, perhaps irregular meetings are more acceptable. But with money being spent if a Treasurer is appointed, the Board has more responsibility to convene, and with the recent Board elections, I'm hopeful that 1 hour a month can be done for everyone. </div><div><br></div><div>Big up to Tony for joining the last SLOB meeting so late at night! :) </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>But thank you for having raised the central question: why has this (prompt financial access/process/awareness) been quite continually neglected over ~8 years of Sugar Labs' existence, and why have all volunteers run away screaming from this role (I got a taste of this when I ran into OLPC CFO Robert Fadel in the hallway at MIT ~6 months ago!) Still, you have not however provided the central answer however, by conveniently pulling yourself out of the running from such a role, so let's be incredibly cautious not to pat ourselves on the back with a poetically dysfunctional unfunded FOIA-style mandate.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If, after all members are notified the project needs to fill the position, and no current member can fill the position, then I suggest the position be advertised with a monthly fee to find someone suitable from the wider floss community. </div><div><br></div><div>I run the <a href="http://www.craftingtype.com">www.craftingtype.com</a> workshops as an activity of the USA TeX Users Group, and the TUG office administrator, Robin Lasko, handles the workshop finances (and I believe TUG funds her position partly through the funds the workshops raises for TUG.) </div><div><br></div><div>I'm not suggesting that _she_ would be interested in this! :) I am pointing out that there are people like that out there who would not volunteer but would be willing to fill the role for relatively modest fees. Given Sugar's focus on learning, perhaps a recent graduate of an accounting programme would be interested...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div></div>And we haven't even got to income/fundraising, where this all begins! So we get what we pay for investing blood+tears -- as intelligent accountants/treasurers everywhere know very well<i> (you may be one of them Caryl, demonstrating such financial maturity, my apologies I can't remember your career full history, and thank you for your time wherever this goes ;-)</i></blockquote></div><br>I agree that it would be awesome if someone holding the Treasurer office was also actively fund raising for the project! <br><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Cheers<br>Dave</div> </div></div>