I agree that the July meeting was much more effective. Motions were
made, seconded, discussed and voted yea-nay in an orderly way. I hope
this allays Dave Crossland and other member's mistrust of the Board.
On 1 July 2016 at 07:06, Tony Anderson<tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote:
We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes by
email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).
I've heard that before, and this seems proven sure to fail. But I
don't think I can make the case for improving the boards procedure any
more strongly.
However, I was struck by the total failure of the Board to address the
business of Sugar Labs.
In summary, more than a Finance Manager, we need a budget. More than
defining a Finance Manager position, we need one (note the position has
been available to be filled since before I joined the Board). We need
reporting on Sugar Labs business at the meeting (money, translation
community, ongoing projects such as GSOC, and so on).
*Monthly Reports
Translation Community Manager
* In the April meeting, the Board appointed Chris Leonard as Translation
Community Manager. Adam Holt modified the job description from this:
Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the community on
the status of the translations program.
to this:
* Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the
community and to the public on the status of the translations
program, preferably by blogging informally (blog posts can be any
length) to http://planet.sugarlabs.org using plain language that is
understandable to almost all.
* Report every 4 months on tactical/strategic/financial choices;
reports can be of any length and should be posted/archived together
to a unique URL (linked from
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Translation-Community_Manager) one
month prior to the completion of each 4-month cycle, mentioning:
o What actually happened over current 4-month cycle and/or since
the last report, including community/financial summaries
(absolutely fine and no shame at all if actions were different
from prior cycle's projections: we learn by doing or we don't
learn at all!)
o What can and should happen over the coming 4-month cycle?
Community workflows are never 100% rational: how do we
tactically nurture continuous improvement?
o Long-term strategic/impact recommendations on an annual basis.
Or optionally more often, if he/she is so inclined.
He apparently was concerned that the Board be informed of the current
status of the translations program.
However, there was no such report for the May meeting, the June meeting
or the July meeting. Presumably, the August meeting will see our first
report - the 4 months report.
In May the Board approved the Yoruba I18n Project committing $4000 from
the TripAdvisor Grant. The motion included:
Milestone 1 - The initial payment of $350 USD will cover startup costs
(internet connection fees, localizer recruitment/training, etc.).
Payment is to be made upon successful completion of contractual
arrangements with fiscal sponsor (SFC).
No report was made on the progress of this project in either the June or
July meetings. As a Board member, I have no idea whether this milestone
has been met.
*Finance Manager*
At this July meeting, the Board passed a motion regarding a Finance
Manager. My concerns here are both procedural and substantive.
It turned out that the motion moved by the Chair was one proposed by
email from Adam Holt at 8pm UTC on July 1, one-hour before the meeting.
It has substantial differences from the version made available to the
Board by Caryl Bigenho on June 30. According to the log of the meeting,
the text was shown at 19:21 and the motion was approved at 19:31. In
those ten minutes, the discussion showed that members of the Board had
substantial reservations but voted in favor essentially to get it off
the table (never a good reason for action).
Note: this meeting did not have a report on our finances - unless you
want to count Adam's report (see following).
*Adam's report on Sugar Labs finances:*
On the substantive side, Adam offered his model of a Financial Manager's
report. [I hope we can improve on this model.]
This report shows a balance (July 1, 2016) of $ -83,198.92. It is shown
as a liability since the reporting is from SFC's perspective.
It then has a section labeled: UNPAID INVOICES as of 1 JULY 2016.
This section has six items, two for accounts receivable and four for
accounts payable. It is not clear which, if any, of these represents an
unpaid invoice.
The next, very long section, is labeled: INCOME/EXPENSES BY PROGRAM
ACTIVITY as of 1 JULY 2016:
This seems to be a list of transactions recorded by SFC back to 2012 (I
assume from when SL entered into a relationship with it). It includes
both expenses and income items. The list is separated into two program
activities: Sugar and the TripAdvisor grant. It shows a total of 29
transactions by Sugar since 2012 plus 5 for the TripAdvisor Grant.
Consider how this compares with what we need as a Board:
1. What is our current balance (general and TripAdvisor grant)?
2. What is our fiscal year? What is our 2016 fiscal year budget? When
was that budget considered and approved by the Board?
3. What is our anticipated income (10% goes to SFC) for 2016. How much
of that is expected from the approved fund-raising?
4. What currently outstanding financial commitments have we made?
[AFIK, $8000 stipend to the Translations Community Manager (8
months @$1000 per month) + $4000 for the Yoruba I18n project].
5. Each month, we need to know the beginning balance, income received,
payments made, ending balance. Even with our low-level of financial
activity,
quarterly is not often enough.
6. Normally organizations have a payment policy [net 30]. What is our
policy?
*Fund Raising Motion*
This motion was in the agenda proposed by Walter on June 30. The agenda
says the action was proposed on May 22. Naturally, I was surprised that
it was included in the agenda since in the meantime the discussion (a
better idea) had moved on. None of the original proposers had indicated
an interest in having it considered by the Board (as Caryl Bigenho did
with the Finance Manager action).
At root, the motion is meaningless. Board action is not required to make
a request for donation from members. The motion does not address any of
the normal questions: who will make the request, how and where will the
request be made, when will the request be made. why (to fulfill what
need) will the request be made. Why limit donations to members? How will
donations be made (currently by check mailed to SFC)?
The motion includes 'The donation requested will be $12 USD from members
who self-identify as low-income (such as students);' I believe this is
totally inappropriate.
Who does the donor of $12 'self-identify' to and what is the 'means
test'? Who decides if the 'means test' is acceptable? If a member
chooses not to donate at the recommended level, no justification is
needed. Obviously, any contribution will be welcome.
Is a donation of $36 adequate to meet the financial needs of Sugar Labs?
Is there a basis for this number or is it just plucked out of the air?
If someone chooses to donate more than the recommended amount, why these
strange benefits? Why not have a donor or patron or sustaining member
level? Naturally, we could encourage donations by 'partners or sponsors'.
The Board is getting its act together, but there is still a ways to go.
Tony
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
