<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Walter Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com" target="_blank">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@lab6.com" target="_blank">dave@lab6.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com" target="_blank">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it directly. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>This last statement makes no sense to me. Bernie "does not" need to ask permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"? </div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Right. Bernie can go ahead and make the purchase on the assumption that it is reasonable and will be approved. </div><div><br></div><div>If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending, he's out of pocket. </div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges? If the latter, what problem are we solving?</div></blockquote></span></div><br>The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a 'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally structured role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved the spending unilaterally. But I cry "uncle". You and Caryl seem so convinced that we need an FM in the middle to approve things, I am willing to give it a try. Your passion carries the day. Let's see what the rest of the oversight board thinks.</div><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more structure, I recommend a close reading of <a href="http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm" target="_blank">http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm</a> - I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :) </div></div></blockquote></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So I read this article. to the degree to which I agree with the recommendations at the end, it seems we are taking as many steps backward as forward with the proposed motions.</div><div><br></div><div>(1) Delegation: We had delegated authority to the teams -- perhaps not enough of them -- but now we are retracting that and putting authority in an individual.</div><div>(2) Responsibility: We are removing responsibility for financial decision making from those closest to the problems</div><div>(3) Distribution: We are going backwards on this front as well</div><div>(4) Rotation: The proposal is agnostic on this, but we should strive to do more rotation on the team level.</div><div>(5) Allocation: I think we had it correct before, allocating to the teams.</div><div>(6) Diffusion of information: My hope is that the FM will help with this, but it certainly is not a given.</div><div>(7) Equal access to resources: I am guessing that the FM position is somehow supposed to address this issue, but I don't understand the mechanics. </div><div><br></div><div>The bottom line is that what we have is a "failure to communicate." If the primary role of the FM is to foster more communication, then +1. But it has not been presented in that light.</div><div><br></div><div>-walter</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><div><br></div></span><div>I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-walter </div></font></span></div><span class=""><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font><font>Walter Bender</font></font><br><font><font>Sugar Labs</font></font></div><div><font><a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank"><font>http://www.sugarlabs.org</font></a></font><br><a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank"><font></font></a><br></div></div></div> </span></div></div> </blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font><font>Walter Bender</font></font><br><font><font>Sugar Labs</font></font></div><div><font><a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank"><font>http://www.sugarlabs.org</font></a></font><br><a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank"><font></font></a><br></div></div></div> </div></div>