On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > > This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been > approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved > the spending unilaterally. But I cry "uncle". You and Caryl seem so > convinced that we need an FM in the middle to approve things, I am willing > to give it a try. Your passion carries the day. Let's see what the rest of > the oversight board thinks. > >> >> 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 :) >> > So I read this article. to the degree to which I agree with the recommendations at the end, it seems we are taking as many steps backward as forward with the proposed motions. (1) Delegation: We had delegated authority to the teams -- perhaps not enough of them -- but now we are retracting that and putting authority in an individual. (2) Responsibility: We are removing responsibility for financial decision making from those closest to the problems (3) Distribution: We are going backwards on this front as well (4) Rotation: The proposal is agnostic on this, but we should strive to do more rotation on the team level. (5) Allocation: I think we had it correct before, allocating to the teams. (6) Diffusion of information: My hope is that the FM will help with this, but it certainly is not a given. (7) Equal access to resources: I am guessing that the FM position is somehow supposed to address this issue, but I don't understand the mechanics. The bottom line is that what we have is a "failure to communicate." If the primary role of the FM is to foster more communication, then +1. But it has not been presented in that light. -walter > > I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting. > > -walter > > > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > <http://www.sugarlabs.org> > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep