Hi Bradley, Sugar Labs Oversight Board has passed 2 motions to retroactively approve Devin Ulibarri's compensation of $500 for February 1-5 at Constructionism 2016 in Bangkok, and his travel/conf expenses of $1690.39. If these presumably meet SFConservancy's travel/expenses policies, please arrange this total ($2190.39) to be paid without delay. Presumably subtracting $787.31 to be paid to Walter Bender who bought Devin's flight, so the check to Devin would be: $1403.08
Likewise Walter Bender's own travel/conf expenses ($1389.29) have also been restroactively approved. Ditto if these presumably meet SFConservancy's travel/expense policies, please arrange for payment without delay. Presumably adding $787.31 for Devin's flight, so the check to Walter would be: $2176.60 Separately, as experts on this matter, does SFConservancy have an opinion on Sugar Labs currently maintaining our legally-required 501(c)(3) bylaws on an open-to-all wiki at https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance regularly changed by passersby, without even mentioning the word "bylaws" curiously? Any quick recommendations for us to improve our legal/governance practices here, given your extensive experience? Adam Holt Sugar Labs Oversight Board Liaison to SFConservancy.org On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Adam Holt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Adam, >> >> The accounting department at Conservancy never received a reply to this >> thread below. As Representative, I would have expected reply to come >> from you. >> >> > Walter Bender wrote on 10 February: >> >> Please find attached my expenses for the Turtle/Music Blocks workshop >> >> in Thailand this month. >> >> I wrote on 8 March: >> > I have processed this expense report for a total expenses amount of >> > $1,389.29 for Bender's travel to the Constructionalism 2016 conference. >> > However, I don't see any records of SLOBs approval of this expense. >> > >> > Adam, as Representative, can you please communicate ASAP that the SLOBs >> > have approved this expense? >> > >> > Once I have this, we can send the reimbursement. >> >> ... and, as such, Walter has still not been reimbursed for his $1,389.29 >> for travel to the Constructionalism 2016 conference. >> >> I really would appreciate if you'd either approve the expense, or >> indicate that it should not be paid, so I can give a definitive answer >> to the traveler about whether the reimbursement request will be paid. >> >> (I know that SLOBs tend to approve things via meetings, so you can just >> send a link to SLOBs minutes if it was approved at a meeting already.) >> -- >> Bradley M. Kuhn >> President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy >> |------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one. >> Pls donate so we can increase staff: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ >> > > Hi Bradley Kuhn who does all the hard work behind SFConservancy Accounting, > > Sorry I was away in Haiti when you wrote in March. Your file > Sugar/Ledger/sugar.ledger correctly shows Walter Bender's $807.22 > flight + expenses to Thailand's Constructionism 2016 = $1389.29 total. > > If SL's Oversight Board was supposed to vote on this affirmatively per > SFConservancy policies, can you just clarify those policies, > particularly with many new board members since February 2nd 2016, so > that we're fully in compliance without confusion going forward? > If SL Board pre-approval of expenses or budgets are necessary and/or > wise then any particular suggestions for resolving this expeditiously > most appreciated. Thank you greatly in advance for your time. > > Aside: Caryl Bigenho and Dave Crossland have been working on a > Treasurer suggestion for Sugar Labs to possibly make such financial > clarity and promptness more of a priority for our community in future, > relevant later this spring if SL's Board chooses to act on this or similar, > but we are not quite there yet encoding norms of financial transparency/ > responsiveness/intentionality that our community agrees on broadly, > and if so how we're going to get there: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc > > > > Devin Ulibarri traveled with me (I bought his plane ticket but he > > > will submit his other expenses separately). > > > > On another related matter, I have not received a trip report and expense > > report from Ulibarri. Per instructions from Conservancy's Executive > > Director, Karen Sandler, on this matter, I have not processed the part > > of the Bender's reimbursement request but will do so as part of Devin's > > full expense report when it arrives. > > I will presume Devin Ulibarri's Constructionism 2016 expenses ($787.31 > flight + $903.08 Music Blocks/conf-related expenses = $1690.39 total) > approval process would follow the exact same process as you outline > for Walter's above, as soon as that's clarified. > > Separately it seems Walter Bender misunderstood that SL's Board agreed > to pay Devin Ulibarri an additional $500 in compensation, above and > beyond Devin's travel expenses: > > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2015-\ > 12-17&oldid=96639 > > In fact, SL's Oversight Board requires 4 votes for all decisions as was > clarified immediately upon my joining SL's Board near the end of 2009, > generally to protect against the temptation to schedule meetings > around different voting factions, when quorum drifts etc, whatevs. > > This requirement for 4 votes (majority of seats) was confirmed on > December 11th 2009, when the motion "SL is and should be a GNU/Linux > distributor" failed, receiving only 3 votes: > > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11 > And again more recently on March 4th 2016: > > http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2016-03-04T16:00:36#i_28624\ > 08 > > I have modified the 2015-12-17 records at > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions to reflect the > correct and agreed-upon procedure (4 votes minimum, certainly that's > been the case since I joined SL's Board at the end of 2009). > > Walter or others wishing to resubmit a motion to pay Devin Ulibarri > $500 in compensation, should feel free to do so (insofar as > SFConservancy Travel Policies permit retroactive financial approvals, > which is NOT something to encourage in future instances obviously, but > in these special circumstances it may obviously be necessary, with all > Board members voting their conscience per usual). > > Sugar Labs needs to be a place where we learn from our human mistakes > WITHOUT recriminations going forward, when small debuggings/reviews > bring us closer to the goal, in keeping with our universal principles > (reflect, > iterate, collaborate, learn!) > > Finally, Devin Ulibarri is a great person by absolutely all > appearances, who I don't happen to know, so I'd be remiss to explain > why I _personally_ abstained from voting during Dec 17th 2015's vote > (mine being 1 of 4 abstentions, alongside Daniel Francis, Chris Leonard, > Gonzalo Odiard) to pay him $500 compensation. That reason is my > personal convictions around financial prudence. My own opinion being > that $500 compensation for a 5-day conference is too high for Sugar > Labs to be paying _anybody_ at this current stage. That caution is > strictly only my opinion however. Four months later, with a very new > Board, it is far more important today that we look to the future > resolving all such matters forthrightly with everyone voting their clear > conscience (whatever motions/votes arise) honoring agreed-upon > procedures respectful of Software Freedom Conservancy requirements. > > Sincere Respect and Thanks -- to Bradley and All, > > Adam Holt > Sugar Labs Oversight Board Liaison to SFConservancy.org > > CC'd to [email protected] as there's a growing if not universal > community request for timely transparency and process clarity, around > vision/governance/finance (enforced by bylaws implicit across > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance but that too > needs to be clarified, as bylaws simply cannot be edited by random > passersby on a wiki, leaving the legally-binding version to guesswork). > Nonetheless identifying/organizing our legal nonprofit bylaws is not > a huge job in the end as outlined above. Most important of all, if > everybody is civil about innocent human procedural mistakes, soon > to be resolved now that they are understood, Donors will also > increase their trust in the Sugar community as our organ of > deliberative forward movement -- catalyzing conscientious action > far beyond hype~ > > -- > Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org ! > > -- > Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org ! >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
