On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak >> with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that >> Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry >> about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it >> directly. >> > > This last statement makes no sense to me. Bernie "does not" need to ask > permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"? > Right. Bernie can go ahead and make the purchase on the assumption that it is reasonable and will be approved. If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending, he's out of pocket. > Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete > goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges? If the > latter, what problem are we solving? > The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a 'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally structured role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending. If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more structure, I recommend a close reading of http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm - I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep