(Apologies for the empty sent earlier)

On 16 June 2016 at 23:30, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote:

> On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:
>> 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
>>> On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application becomes
>>> the
>>> > treasurer for those funds.
>>> Fair enough :) I am merely observing what I see as current practice
>>> with the Trip Advisor grant :)
>>> > What should happen is a sales cycle: if there is
>>> > interest, the SLOBs should be in the loop so they can assist with
>>> > face-to-face meetings, followup documents, and Adam/SFC liaison issues.
>> This is probably the key point to ensure funds actually get to the active
>> members. It will require 100% transparency of grants documents
What does "100% transparency of grants documents" mean concretely?

I can suggest we ensure all grant final document drafts and final copies
are on the wiki/website, and Project Instigators keep the community
informed of relevant updates.

What else should be done?

 and SCF management issues.

What does "100% transparency of Conservancy management issues" mean

Conservancy is mostly staffed by lawyers, who wish to mostly communicate
under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege which
requires not having their emails be public or disclosed to anyone but the
specifically addressed and intended recipients, so they do not participate
much on these public lists.

I think Adam is doing a good job of conveying the important information as
the single point of contact between SL and Conservancy.

What else do you want him to do differently?

(Conservancy asks everyone to refer to them as Conservancy, not "SFC",
because they can be confused with SFLC that way.)

> > Document signings involving Walter require prior SFC review. In my view,
>>> > disbursal of funds from a successful grant should be managed by
>>> > (perhaps primarily in the role of a Finance Manager or Treasurer), as
>>> per
>>> > Gould or TripAdvisor.
>>> Please could you clarify why Walter (or any other SLOB) would
>>> specifically need to be signing documents; I understand that that
>>> Conservancy signs the documents, because legally Conservancy is the
>>> party to them and neither SLOBs nor Members are agents of Conservancy
>>> and lack signing authority.
>>> Conversely, I don't see why SLOBS or Conservancy would be involved in
>>> the management of a project; they only and merely approve the funding,
>>> and until a Financial Manager is in place, this is done by regular
>>> motion.
>> What is proposed in the new "by funds structure" is to keep a Project
>> Leader per Project as the Treasurer of that Project's  fund. For general
>> purpose expenses SL already have the SLOBs who act as Treasurers of the
>> General Funds fund.
>> Project Leaders-Treasurers should be encouraged to present time-cycle
>> required Budgets to the SL Funding/Grants Committee.
>> Each Project Leader may approve or not an specific grant or grant
>> percentage to get into his/her Project Fund for N periods of time. By
>> approving the incoming of funds into the project, the Project Leader shall
>> agree to make his/her best effort to deliver the grant's desired results on
>> each time cycle as well as of course to share the results openly.
Sounds good to me! :)

> That said and according to current SLOBs requirements, SLOBs approval will
>> get a long tale as according to current motions system it requires that (A)
>> each disbursement motion gets to be seconded by one SLOB + (B) the motion
>> gets 4 affirmative votes.
I agree that this is a problem; and that is why I proposed motions that
would structure SLOB meetings in a way that increases their effectiveness.

IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Reply via email to