[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Adam

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, I've added them as comments in the
doc to help close them out

On 6 May 2016 at 12:06, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:
> The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on
> within
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
> is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
> better understood:
>
> - Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
> not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential
> monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month or
> what?
>
> - The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's
> life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
> financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
> advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
> have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If s/he
> is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to
> be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled
> the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week
> after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing she
> can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if s/he
> tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they often take a
> month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their system, so the Financial
> Manager cannot in fact get hard information about January.  My understanding
> from SFConservancy is that on February 10th, we could only get hard info on
> December's financials, and even then there's no absolute guarantee, as
> receipts come in very late at times.
>
> On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us obtain
> live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed up-to-date
> financials until 2 months later!  But what other options are there?  Should
> we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in exchange for recency?  And
> if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months
> every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of the
> Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the best
> of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of expenses/income
> and balance on the last day of each month?
>
> - Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these
> 2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment of
> another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per 6-month
> period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired immediately for
> missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2 years?  If so, we
> need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the Financial Manager
> immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other, then we should say
> that more explicitly.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my
>>> > motions
>>> > receive a majority vote.
>>>
>>> I just checked
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
>>> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
>>> as she says,
>>>
>>> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
>>> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion.
>>>
>>> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.
>>>
>>> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
>>> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
>>> month?)
>>>
>>> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
>>> within May :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>> I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion
>> 1, I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no
>> evidence that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a
>> shot. Re Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real
>> problem and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold
>> spending authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example,
>> Bernie, as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally approved
>> the request for the domain name payment. He already has that authority.) I
>> am fine with the other two motions as written.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep



-- 
Cheers
Dave