<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Tony Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tony_anderson@usa.net" target="_blank">tony_anderson@usa.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I agree that the July meeting was much more effective. Motions
were made, seconded, discussed and voted yea-nay in an orderly
way. I hope this allays Dave Crossland and other member's mistrust
of the Board. <br><div>
<br>
<pre>On 1 July 2016 at 07:06, Tony Anderson <a href="mailto:tony_anderson@usa.net" target="_blank"><tony_anderson@usa.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<pre>We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes by
email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I've heard that before, and this seems proven sure to fail. But I
don't think I can make the case for improving the boards procedure any
more strongly.</pre>
<br>
However, I was struck by the total failure of the Board to address
the business of Sugar Labs. <br>
<br>
In summary, more than a Finance Manager, we need a budget. More
than defining a Finance Manager position, we need one (note the
position has been available to be filled since before I joined the
Board). We need reporting on Sugar Labs business at the meeting
(money, translation community, ongoing projects such as GSOC, and
so on).<br>
<br>
<b>Monthly Reports<br>
<br>
Translation Community Manager<br>
<br>
</b> In the April meeting, the Board appointed Chris Leonard as
Translation Community Manager. Adam Holt modified the job
description from this:<br>
<br>
Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the
community on the status of the translations program.<br>
<br>
to this:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li> Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the
community and to the public on the status of the translations
program, preferably by blogging informally (blog posts can be
any length) to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://planet.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">http://planet.sugarlabs.org</a>
using plain language that is understandable to almost all.</li>
<li> Report every 4 months on tactical/strategic/financial
choices; reports can be of any length and should be
posted/archived together to a unique URL (linked from <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Translation-Community_Manager" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Translation-Community_Manager" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Translation-Community_Manager</a>)
one month prior to the completion of each 4-month cycle,
mentioning:
<ul>
<li> What actually happened over current 4-month cycle
and/or since the last report, including
community/financial summaries (absolutely fine and no
shame at all if actions were different from prior cycle's
projections: we learn by doing or we don't learn at all!)</li>
<li> What can and should happen over the coming 4-month
cycle? Community workflows are never 100% rational: how do
we tactically nurture continuous improvement?</li>
<li> Long-term strategic/impact recommendations on an annual
basis. Or optionally more often, if he/she is so inclined.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
He apparently was concerned that the Board be informed of the
current status of the translations program. <br>
<br>
However, there was no such report for the May meeting, the June
meeting or the July meeting. Presumably, the August meeting will
see
our first report - the 4 months report.<br></div></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><div>Yes, Chris Leonard asks that we all keep posted, as he will be sharing news shortly, see <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-July/018901.html" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-July/018901.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
In May the Board approved the Yoruba I18n Project committing $4000
from the TripAdvisor Grant. The motion included:<br>
<br>
<pre>Milestone 1 - The initial payment of $350 USD will cover startup costs
(internet connection fees, localizer recruitment/training, etc.).
Payment is to be made upon successful completion of contractual
arrangements with fiscal sponsor (SFC).</pre>
No report was made on the progress of this project in either the
June or July meetings. As a Board member, I have no idea whether
this milestone has been met.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My understanding is that SFConservancy and Samson Goddy are close to completing Milestone 1, based on signed contracts articulating the full 3-milestone agreement beginning July 1 2016 for a duration of 1-year maximum, but that Milestone 1's financial transaction is still being worked out since Samson is not yet 18 years old. And as such an older friend of Samson's and his mother are signing documents to legally vouch for all finances until Samson's 18th birthday which occurs later this year.<br><br></div><div>Samson and Chris can share many more details in coming weeks.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
<b>Finance Manager</b><br>
<br>
At this July meeting, the Board passed a motion regarding a
Finance Manager. My concerns here are both procedural and
substantive.<br>
It turned out that the motion moved by the Chair was one proposed
by email from Adam Holt at 8pm UTC on July 1, one-hour before the
meeting. <br>
It has substantial differences from the version made available to
the Board by Caryl Bigenho on June 30. According to the log of the
meeting, the text was shown at 19:21 and the motion was approved
at 19:31. In those ten minutes, the discussion showed that members
of the Board had substantial reservations but voted in favor
essentially to get it off the table (never a good reason for
action).<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Respectfully, nitpicking over one sentence's wording (simply clarifying for all SFConservancy's best-effort current norms to pay within (about) 30 days of SFC receiving any approved disbursement) is not a case of substantial reservations. 5 of 7 voted in favor after almost 5 months of debate we now have a concise decision, with the support of Dave Crossland on this sentence, who contributed to evolving many of these "procedural clarity" ideas here over the course of this spring as this came together. Articulating SFC's sincere procedural NET-30 best efforts is a good thing IMHO, to outline real-world process and real-world expectations for all.<br><br>Yes if the sky falls, and Sugar Labs later abandons its SFC legal/accounting team (extraordinarily unlikely) for another 501c3 non-profit umbrella, there'd be myriad bylaw/decision amendments & clarifications needed at <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance</a> and <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions</a> far beyond (important) expectation setting around SFC's current NET-30. But personally I don't take such hypotheticals very seriously :><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
Note: this meeting did not have a report on our finances - unless
you want to count Adam's report (see following).<br>
<br>
<b>Adam's report on Sugar Labs finances:</b><br>
<br>
On the substantive side, Adam offered his model of a Financial
Manager's report. [I hope we can improve on this model.]<br>
<br>
This report shows a balance (July 1, 2016) of $ -83,198.92. It is
shown as a liability since the reporting is from SFC's
perspective.<br>
<br>
It then has a section labeled: UNPAID INVOICES as of 1 JULY 2016.
<br>
<br>
This section has six items, two for accounts receivable and four
for accounts payable. It is not clear which, if any, of these
represents an unpaid invoice.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe all 2 + 4 = 6 are unpaid invoices, precisely as stated in that paragraph under "UNPAID INVOICES as of 1 JULY 2016" : <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-July/018902.html">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-July/018902.html</a><br><br></div><div>But if you are you saying there is an error, LMK any specific errors so I can investigate.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
The next, very long section, is labeled: INCOME/EXPENSES BY
PROGRAM ACTIVITY as of 1 JULY 2016:<br>
<br>
This seems to be a list of transactions recorded by SFC back to
2012 (I assume from when SL entered into a relationship with it).
It includes both expenses and income items. The list is separated
into two program activities: Sugar and the TripAdvisor grant. It
shows a total of 29 transactions by Sugar since 2012 plus 5 for
the TripAdvisor Grant.<br>
<br>
Consider how this compares with what we need as a Board:<br>
<br>
1. What is our current balance (general and TripAdvisor grant)?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are no separate balances for Gould grant, Trip Advisor grant, etc according to SFConservancy Exec Director Karen Sandler, as was much discussed earlier this year. It is also true that Sugar Labs has not spent down the Gould grant or the Trip Advisor grant, within the mandated time period stated by both grants. Still, even at this late date (after both grants were supposed to have been spent down) it would of course be very wise and respectful to consider the broad and general wishes of the original donors.<br><br>While the funds themselves are fungible, in the hands of Sugar Labs Oversight Board, according to Karen Sandler.<br></div><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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
2. What is our fiscal year? What is our 2016 fiscal year budget?</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Fiscal year is March 1st 2016 until February 28th 2017; see @ <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance</a><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>When was that budget considered and approved by the Board?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're quite correct a budget would be wonderful. SFConservancy's leadership Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn reiterate this is what we should strive for above all else, similar to the most successful of the ~40 non-profits they supervise.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
3. What is our anticipated income (10% goes to SFC) for 2016. How
much of that is expected from the approved fund-raising?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If the fundraising and marketing team(s)/committee(s) emerge, that'd be absolutely wonderful; these are indeed questions they should drive forward.<br></div><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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
4. What currently outstanding financial commitments have we made?
<br>
[AFIK, $8000 stipend to the Translations Community Manager (8
months @$1000 per month) + $4000 for the Yoruba I18n project].<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sounds roughly right, but can you consult with Walter in coming weeks about upcoming Turtle Art trips to Nigeria in August and Paraguay in October for projected budgets there too?<br><br></div><div>SEE: <a href="http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/2016-07-01#i_2874795">http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/2016-07-01#i_2874795</a><br></div><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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
5. Each month, we need to know the beginning balance, income
received, payments made, ending balance. Even with our low-level
of financial activity, <br>
quarterly is not often enough.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personally I could not disagree more, having approached SFConservancy's founder and de facto CFO Bradley Kuhn on this matter specifically (asking him many questions about what pace of financial reporting is most effective among the ~40 non-profits he supervises) and he reiterates that an annual budget is the real underlying issue we need to be addressing, rather than getting distracted micromanaging weekly/monthly financials, even if that were in fact possible. SFC Exec Director Karen Sandler also strongly agrees.<br><br>Whereas penny-wise and pound-foolish pursuits over what pennies were spent last weeks are almost the very definition of counter-productive. Particularly as all financial transactions are generally processed and recorded Many Weeks/Months Later, such that monthly reporting (*) would at this stage be a meaningless Fool's Errand and complete waste of our organizational bandwidth. Regardless whether there are 10 transactions per month or 1. There is a reasoned financial professionals use quarterly reporting!<br><br>(*) even if it were practical there's the separate question of if we could afford it. In general we could use far more honesty here on the
very real cost of quality accounting/legal professionals outside of our own areas of professional expertise.<br><br>In conclusion, going from no public financials at all for across 2012 to 2016 (very regrettably even board members like myself had little to no access to financial info during those 4 years, at least now we have <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance</a>) is a bigger step than you might imagine, and we should not casually underestimate how much work has gone into getting us thus far. (How many more $7 Million Benghazi Committees did you say we need, to further bureaucratize what's left of our OLPC/Sugar Dream? ;-)<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
6. Normally organizations have a payment policy [net 30]. What is
our policy?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We rely on SFConservancy's norms and policies here. My understanding is that many/most approved payments are made within (about) 30 days of when they are submitted to SFC. But never having been paid or reimbursed I of course can't say for sure, so others may have better info :)<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
<b>Fund Raising Motion</b><br>
<br>
This motion was in the agenda proposed by Walter on June 30. The
agenda says the action was proposed on May 22. Naturally, I was
surprised that it was included in the agenda since in the meantime
the discussion (a better idea) had moved on. None of the original
proposers had indicated an interest in having it considered by the
Board (as Caryl Bigenho did with the Finance Manager action).<br>
<br>
At root, the motion is meaningless. Board action is not required
to make a request for donation from members. The motion does not
address any of the normal questions: who will make the request,
how and where will the request be made, when will the request be
made. why (to fulfill what need) will the request be made. Why
limit donations to members? How will donations be made (currently
by check mailed to SFC)?<br></div></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><div>Good questions for the fundraising team/committee that seems to be emerging. Sounds like Tony you might be able to contribute to that team/committee? Even if that larger Campaign Ask is not yet defined, as Sameer and Sean have articulated would be infinitely better!<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
The motion includes '<span style="font-size:14.6667px;font-family:Roboto;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">The
donation requested will be $12 USD from members who
self-identify as low-income (such as students);' I believe this
is totally inappropriate. <br>
Who does the donor of $12 'self-identify' to and what is the
'means test'? Who decides if the 'means test' is acceptable? </span>If
a member chooses not to donate at the recommended level, no
justification is needed. Obviously, any contribution will be
welcome.<br>
<br>
Is a donation of $36 adequate to meet the financial needs of Sugar
Labs? Is there a basis for this number or is it just plucked out
of the air? <br>
<br>
If someone chooses to donate more than the recommended amount, why
these strange benefits? Why not have a donor or patron or
sustaining member level? Naturally, we could encourage donations
by 'partners or sponsors'. <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Really great questions, important tough questions that I hope you can work with the Fundraising Committee/Team on? Whatever is decided by the emerging Fundraising "Committeam" we hope, with Sameer and others' input en route? With a caution from SFConservancy's Chief Counsel Tony Sebro, who strongly warns us that IRS 501(c)3 law requires that annual dues (or suggesting donations, or any donations) cannot offer tangible benefits. (If any significant tangible benefits are offered, these can no longer be tax-deductible donations under US law.)<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>
The Board is getting its act together, but there is still a ways
to go.<span></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><joke> Just don't forget to budget and keep all your receipts for the free beer during our in-person annual board meeting in Tony's Poland/Carolinas camper, to get out of this tone-deaf accusatory cesspool of irc and mailing lists, so we actually begin to look each other in the eye as actual human beings instead :-) </joke><br><br><no joke> Sincerely It Can Happen, One Day !! </no joke><br></div></div><br>--<br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ <a href="http://unleashkids.org" target="_blank">http://unleashkids.org</a><br></div></div>
</div></div>