Hi On 18 May 2016 at 11:53, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal >> financial responsibility for the Conservancy account. > > > In my view it's theoretically reasonable, however there is a real risk of > red tape logjam. It's quite common for orgs to set a reasonable amount > limit for expenditures not requiring formal votes, to reduce bureaucratic > delays (i.e. waiting for the next meeting then spending time on it). It's > also quite common for all such expenses to be accounted for anyway, and for > the limit to be adjusted up or down per requirements, to better focus on > the important issues at hand. > While it is common to have such a limit, and despite SLOBs apparently already authorising such a limit for Walter (who with Bernie has a de facto special position of trust as a co-founder) it seems Conservancy is a higher authority than SLOBs and requires a board vote for any spending. Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs. -- Cheers Dave
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
