[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] A Better Idea...

[Laura Vargas]

2016-06-17 23:29 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>:

> (Apologies for the empty sent earlier)
>
> On 16 June 2016 at 23:30, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas <laura at somosazucar.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application
>>>> becomes the
>>>> > treasurer for those funds.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough :) I am merely observing what I see as current practice
>>>> with the Trip Advisor grant :)
>>>>
>>>> > What should happen is a sales cycle: if there is
>>>> > interest, the SLOBs should be in the loop so they can assist with
>>>> > face-to-face meetings, followup documents, and Adam/SFC liaison
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is probably the key point to ensure funds actually get to the
>>> active members. It will require 100% transparency of grants documents
>>>
>>
> What does "100% transparency of grants documents" mean concretely?
>
> I can suggest we ensure all grant final document drafts and final copies
> are on the wiki/website, and Project Instigators keep the community
> informed of relevant updates.
>
What else should be done?
>

I guess publishing all grants main document/contract would be enough.


>
>  and SCF management issues.
>
>
> What does "100% transparency of Conservancy management issues" mean
> concretely?
>
> Conservancy is mostly staffed by lawyers, who wish to mostly communicate
> under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
> which requires not having their emails be public or disclosed to anyone but
> the specifically addressed and intended recipients, so they do not
> participate much on these public lists.
>
> I think Adam is doing a good job of conveying the important information as
> the single point of contact between SL and Conservancy.
>
> What else do you want him to do differently?
>
> (Conservancy asks everyone to refer to them as Conservancy, not "SFC",
> because they can be confused with SFLC that way.)
>
>
>> > Document signings involving Walter require prior SFC review. In my view,
>>>> > disbursal of funds from a successful grant should be managed by
>>>> SFC/SLOBs
>>>> > (perhaps primarily in the role of a Finance Manager or Treasurer), as
>>>> per
>>>> > Gould or TripAdvisor.
>>>>
>>>> Please could you clarify why Walter (or any other SLOB) would
>>>> specifically need to be signing documents; I understand that that
>>>> Conservancy signs the documents, because legally Conservancy is the
>>>> party to them and neither SLOBs nor Members are agents of Conservancy
>>>> and lack signing authority.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Conversely, I don't see why SLOBS or Conservancy would be involved in
>>>> the management of a project; they only and merely approve the funding,
>>>> and until a Financial Manager is in place, this is done by regular
>>>> motion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What is proposed in the new "by funds structure" is to keep a Project
>>> Leader per Project as the Treasurer of that Project's  fund. For general
>>> purpose expenses SL already have the SLOBs who act as Treasurers of the
>>> General Funds fund.
>>>
>>> Project Leaders-Treasurers should be encouraged to present time-cycle
>>> required Budgets to the SL Funding/Grants Committee.
>>>
>>> Each Project Leader may approve or not an specific grant or grant
>>> percentage to get into his/her Project Fund for N periods of time. By
>>> approving the incoming of funds into the project, the Project Leader shall
>>> agree to make his/her best effort to deliver the grant's desired results on
>>> each time cycle as well as of course to share the results openly.
>>>
>>
> Sounds good to me! :)
>
>
>> That said and according to current SLOBs requirements, SLOBs approval
>>> will get a long tale as according to current motions system it requires
>>> that (A) each disbursement motion gets to be seconded by one SLOB + (B) the
>>> motion gets 4 affirmative votes.
>>>
>>
> I agree that this is a problem; and that is why I proposed motions that
> would structure SLOB meetings in a way that increases their effectiveness.
>
>
Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D


>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Laura V.
I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20160619/5c85e2fb/attachment.html>