On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Laura Vargas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2017-08-11 9:23 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Laura Vargas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-08-11 8:54 GMT-05:00 Avni Khatri <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Samuel Cantero <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> mind-boggling indeed. SL has been in GSoC and GCI for years. I'm not a >>>>> board member but +1 for sure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Avni, >>> >>> I agree with you it should be clearly defined who in Sugar Labs is >>> responsible for Google's collections. >>> >>> Resources in Sugar Labs are limited and historically we had lost a lot of >>> opportunities because uncollected grant, please research on Trip Advisor's >>> case when lack of clear responsibility for collection let to an unbelievable >>> lack of collection of US$40.000 for internationalization's projects. >>> >>> Responsibility isn't clear at this point. >>> >>> About the Financial Manager role, it was created by the Board on July's >>> decisions last year, still they never appointed anyone for the role. >>> >>> In the meanwhile, Adam has continue serving as the representative for >>> Sugar Labs with the Software Freedom Conservancy since last period. Still, >>> this role doesn't account for any financial responsibility according to >>> current Governance. >>> >>> I'm sorry we still don't have a wiki page that would easily resolve any >>> financial question to the community. It is a tendency I'm hoping to revert >>> by proposing the Motion 2017-08-10: Sugar Labs Financial Manager to have a >>> monthly compensation. >>> >>> >> First i see no reason for this decision, after the comments from walter's >> and i quote. >> >> "Google has been consistently paying us for almost 10 years. The fact that >> we have not yet seen the $7000 from GCI is an SFC interface issue." >> >> Sugar Labs not receiving $7k from GCI was a problem from SFC. This >> discussion is unhealthy for this motion because it serves as a distraction. > > > > Samson, > > On the contrary I would have no problem to vote +1 on this motion if we had > already a clearly defined and fairly compensated Financial Manager > responsible for the numbers (this includes tracking collections and > payments) on our quarterly reports.
The two motions are separate. Let's keep those that way. Sameer > > I hope the best for you. > > > Regards, > > > -- > Laura V. > I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org > > “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” > ~ Laura Victoria > > Happy Learning! > #LearningByDoing > #Projects4good > #IDesignATSugarLabs > #WeCanDoBetter > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > _______________________________________________ Lista olpc-Sur [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur
