[Sugar-devel] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Walter Bender]

(1) I did second the motion as I think it deserves consideration, but as a
potential beneficiary, I don't think I should vote.
(2) I don't really understand the differences intended by the revised
process suggested by Tony or the revised wording suggested by Sebastian. My
intent was that the funds from Google ("mentor stipends" or "payments
for mentoring")
billed through the "vendor" (in our case the SFC) be made available to the
mentors as opposed to be relegated to the general funds. In the case that
they are in the hands of the mentors, it is the mentors who can determine
how to spend the money. In the latter case, it is the oversight board. The
details as to how to execute this, I leave to our liaison with the SFC to
figure out.

FWIW, what I intend to do with the stipend if I have unilateral access to
it is to use it to buy hardware for the Nigerian i18n project. I will have
to pay taxes on that money, so it is more efficient to spend it through the
SFC umbrella, but I don't have unilateral ability to do that with general
Sugar Labs funds.

-walter

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>
wrote:

>
>
> El 07/05/16 a las 09:52, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 08:53, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>> With Walter recusing himself and you dissaproving
>
>
> Walter seconded the motion
>
> From Walter's email:
> "Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation
> for a vote on the following motion. (Note that since I am a mentor, I think
> I must recuse myself from the vote.)"
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20160507/b95f4a0c/attachment.html>