[IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion

[Adam Holt]

Caryl, Sebastian, Samson & All,

1) Can you provide all a link to a current (or post-election) SL membership
list, verified to be reasonably current?

2) How many active and nonactive/lapsed members does SL have exactly, and
what info do we retain on each, in case they choose to donate/rejoin etc?

Anonymous members are perfectly OK, if some prefer not to have their names
or other personal info published!

PS can you get the latest (above info+similar) into Dave Crossland's before
Wiki-Garsdening Wkd?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 2:08 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
> On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among
>> activities/teams/projects etc.
>
>
> I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly to
> further income, to grow the project.
>

I agree that there is a need for income strategies as well. Still, the idea
of annual budget is to plan the expenses so that the most areas of an
organization can produce results in what they do.

It would be ideal to count with a somehow stable basic income, and
therefore it would make sense to promote a motion for Lionel's idea of a
yearly membership fee. Of course it would have to contemplate the
exemptions of minors and members who actually don't have resources to pay.

Been more than 80 members, a yearly fee of US$100 with an estimated ~50% of
exemptions would put in SL general fund ~US$4.000 per year, probably enough
for basic operations.


-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Adam Holt]

On May 11, 2016 2:55 PM, "Sebastian Silva" 
wrote:
>
> El 11/05/16 a las 13:40, Adam Holt escribió:
> > This was clarified when I joined SL Oversight Board at the end of
> > 2009, and again exhaustively re-clarified at the beginning of this year.
> Can you point me to where this was "exhaustively re-clarified" ?
> Thanks!

Kindly read the minutes of SL Oversight Meetings from earlier this year,
where I laid this out in explicit detail, precisely so we don't leave lead
lives of eternal parliamentary snafus, with several new board members who
did plainly did not understand voting, even after explanation.

Feel free to read the several failed motions (late autumn 2009, and late
autumn 2015 are 2 examples) which received a majority of "those who
bothered to vote" but failed to muster the required 4 votes (majority of
seats) to actually pass.

It's high time we start encoding these facts (de facto nonprofit bylaws)
into Governance pages so we/all give curious newcomers functional
transparency, earning their trust.

Specifically I'm hoping SL Board secretary (Dave Crossland has agreed to
serve) can invest some moments this wkd, publishing agreed voting
procedures / who exactly are our nonprofit's members today / how many /
what is the true criterion for joining / etc, so we can move beyond the
Tyranny of Structurelessness at long last!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Sebastian Silva]

El 11/05/16 a las 13:40, Adam Holt escribió:
> This was clarified when I joined SL Oversight Board at the end of
> 2009, and again exhaustively re-clarified at the beginning of this year.
Can you point me to where this was "exhaustively re-clarified" ?
Thanks!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Adam Holt]

4 affirmative votes (majoruty of 7 seats) are required for all motions to
pass.

This was clarified when I joined SL Oversight Board at the end of 2009, and
again exhaustively re-clarified at the beginning of this year.
On May 11, 2016 2:24 PM, "Sebastian Silva" 
wrote:

>
>
> El 11/05/16 a las 13:01, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstains,
> and the funds will accrue into the general fund.
>
>
> Here I found a precedent:
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Log-2009-09-25
>
>  okay, that's 3 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. we could still get 3 no, I
> suppose.
>  cjb:the motion passes.
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Sebastian Silva]

El 11/05/16 a las 13:01, Dave Crossland escribió:
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4
> abstains, and the funds will accrue into the general fund. 

Here I found a precedent:
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Log-2009-09-25

 okay, that's 3 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. we could still get 3 no,
I suppose.
 cjb:the motion passes.

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Sebastian Silva]

El 11/05/16 a las 13:01, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4
> abstains, and the funds will accrue into the general fund. 
That is a curious conclusion. The Governance does not mention how SLOBs
votes are counted, but I would have assumed a simple majority was
needed, not absolute majority.

So which is it? Do we have a precedent?

Regards,
Sebastian
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among
> activities/teams/projects etc.


I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly to
further income, to grow the project.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 2:03 GMT+08:00 Chris Leonard :

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> >
> > On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012),
> the
> >> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the
> existing
> >> Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
> >> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.
> >
> >
> > That makes sense :) Thanks!
> >
>
> Yes, prior to the 2012 Amended FSA, I don't think Sugar Labs had paid
> anything to SFC, so there was a one-time 10% payment on assets in the
> bank.  Since that time it is 10% of revenue (donations).  FWIW, I
> don't think they are taking their 10% cut of our annual bank account
> interest, not that it amounts to much or matters one way or the other.
>
> cjl
>


Going back to the annual budget planning after confirming all the numbers
and deducing the already passed motions, there are ~US$65,000 available for
planning/distributing among activities/teams/projects etc.

-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Chris Leonard]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012), the
>> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing
>> Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
>> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.
>
>
> That makes sense :) Thanks!
>

Yes, prior to the 2012 Amended FSA, I don't think Sugar Labs had paid
anything to SFC, so there was a one-time 10% payment on assets in the
bank.  Since that time it is 10% of revenue (donations).  FWIW, I
don't think they are taking their 10% cut of our annual bank account
interest, not that it amounts to much or matters one way or the other.

cjl
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 13:53, Adam Holt  wrote:

> Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
> organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
> low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
> Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.
>
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstains,
and the funds will accrue into the general fund.

So in that case, I guess a motion to pay a $250 thank you fee to
specifically named mentors when the funds are available might pass with
votes for from Adam and the 3 votes for this motion.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Adam Holt]

On May 7, 2016 3:33 PM, "Lionel Laské"  wrote:
>
> Disagree.
>
> Thought I understand that 500$ is lot of money for some people, I think
that GSoC is also a way for SugarLabs to raise money. Because we don't ask
for an annual fee to member (like other association, for example OLPC
France), it's even the only way to hope for a regular contribution.

Indeed, Google chose to pay "mentoring organizations" rather mentors, for
exactly the reasons Lionel lays out.  If Google wanted to pay GSoC stipends
instead, it would have done exactly that, using the word stipend, and
incurring the very significant accounting/managerial/compliance costs of
managing such stipends.  Google (GSoC) did Not make that choice, though
conceivably in future Google should consider international transactions
direct to Mentors?

Until that distant day, mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently
recognized, just like the mentoring organization is insufficiently
recognized, in the constructionist ethos especially we are all learning ;-)

In conclusion, I abstain because my own opinion is that a $500 pass-thru to
the mentor shows a lack of respect for the organization/ops backstopping of
our overall *joint* efforts ~ in the same way that $500 to the organization
shows a similar lack of respect for certain particularly dedicated mentors.

Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.

Lionel's warning should not be ignored, if anyone cares about
inter-generational leadership: in the apprentice system the parents of
mentees who can afford it would very happily Pay Sugar Labs (Mentoring
Organization), much like users of Wikipedia happily Pay annual donations,
much like members of OLPC France happily Pay for something they believe
in...  (What other learning economies surround us, that we may not even
realize??)

> Best regards from France.
>
> Lionel.
>
>
> 2016-05-07 1:49 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :
>>
>> At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the
motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to allow the mentors participating in
Google Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as
they see fit. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.
>>
>> Background: Every year, Google provides mentoring organizations with a
stipend for the mentors. In our first year of participation in the program,
Sugar Labs mentors agreed to have the stipend directed to the Sugar Labs
general funds. We have followed the same procedure in subsequent years.
This year, however, several mentors asked if they could have access to the
stipends (which are allocated per student internship). We discussed this at
the meeting and agreed that it would be appropriate to offer these funds as
compensation and thanks to the mentors for their time and expertise (there
were no objections raised). We need to vote on this however, since the
funds are given to the mentoring organization, not the individual mentors.
>>
>> Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation
for a vote on the following motion. (Note that since I am a mentor, I think
I must recuse myself from the vote.)
>>
>> Motion: to allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> [1]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012), the
> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing
> Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.


That makes sense :) Thanks!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 0:56 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were
>> cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> Total Income 10% of Total Income
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015 $9.028,56 $902,86
>> 2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22
>> 2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
>> 2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
>> *Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*
>>
>>
>> Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
>> I´m attaching the corrected file.
>>
>
> 2012 seems odd? :)
>

Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012), the
Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing
Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.

;D

-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were
> cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this:
>
>
>
> Total Income 10% of Total Income
>
>
>
> 2015 $9.028,56 $902,86
> 2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22
> 2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
> 2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
> *Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*
>
>
> Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
> I´m attaching the corrected file.
>

2012 seems odd? :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were
cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this:



Total Income 10% of Total Income



2015 $9.028,56 $902,86
2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22
2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
*Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*


Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
I´m attaching the corrected file.

Sorry again and best regards,
Laura V



2016-05-11 23:58 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
> >
> > 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard <
> cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > ...
> >>> >
> >>> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
> >>> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
> expenditures
> >>> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
> >>> >
> >>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is
> my
> >>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a
> 10%
> >>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
> >>> >
> >>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
> Agreement.
> >>> >
> >>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
> >>> >
> >>> > "Fees.
> >>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
> >>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
> >>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
> >>> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
> >>> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
> >>> >
> >>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
> >>> >
> >>> > cjl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
> >>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
> >>
> >>
> >> There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands
> unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
> >>
> >>> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
> >>
> >>
> >> 10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
> days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
> carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
> >>
> >
> > According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent
> (10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
> > limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
> operations.
> >
> > Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions
> made to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
> between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
> actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
> early this year);
>
> Laura,
>
> I think you are misinterpreting https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance
>
> When it says "Donated To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" that implies a
> cumulative total over the years, just like every other line-item in those
> lower paragraphs, for each financial year.
>
> In conclusion your table appears to be (accidentally) greatly exaggerating
> the amounts being paid (held for) SFConservancy, so you may want issue a
> corrected version.
>
> Regards-
> Adam
>
> > Total Income
> > 10% of Total Income
> > Donated To SFC
> > Difference
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015
> > $9.028,56
> > $902,86
> > $12.683,40
> > ($11.780,54)
> > 2014
> > $49.622,18
> > $4.962,22
> > $11.780,54
> > ($6.818,32)
> > 2013
> > $49.229,19
> > $4.922,92
> > $6.818,34
> > ($1.895,42)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Total
> > $107.879,93
> > $10.787,99
> > $31.282,28
> > ($20.494,29)
> >
> >
> >> Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect
> those and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if
> we as a community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Adam,
> >
> > I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so
> we can clarify the numbers.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > laura v
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> cjl
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
> >>
> >> ___
> >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Laura V.
> > I SomosAZUCAR.Org
> >
> > Identi.ca/Skype 

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>
> 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :
>>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard 
wrote:
>>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
>>> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
expenditures
>>> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
>>> >>
>>> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>>> >
>>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
>>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
>>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>>> >
>>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
Agreement.
>>> >
>>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>>> >
>>> > "Fees.
>>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
>>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
>>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>>> >
>>> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
>>> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
>>> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
>>> >
>>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>>> >
>>> > cjl
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
>>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>>
>>
>> There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands
unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
>>
>>> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>>
>>
>> 10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
>>
>
> According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent
(10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
> limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
operations.
>
> Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions made
to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
early this year);

Laura,

I think you are misinterpreting https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance

When it says "Donated To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" that implies a
cumulative total over the years, just like every other line-item in those
lower paragraphs, for each financial year.

In conclusion your table appears to be (accidentally) greatly exaggerating
the amounts being paid (held for) SFConservancy, so you may want issue a
corrected version.

Regards-
Adam

> Total Income
> 10% of Total Income
> Donated To SFC
> Difference
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015
> $9.028,56
> $902,86
> $12.683,40
> ($11.780,54)
> 2014
> $49.622,18
> $4.962,22
> $11.780,54
> ($6.818,32)
> 2013
> $49.229,19
> $4.922,92
> $6.818,34
> ($1.895,42)
>
>
>
>
>
> Total
> $107.879,93
> $10.787,99
> $31.282,28
> ($20.494,29)
>
>
>> Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect
those and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if
we as a community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
>
>
> Adam,
>
> I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so
we can clarify the numbers.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> laura v
>
>>
>>>
>>> cjl
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] OLPC-SF May meeting NEXT WEEK 5/21

[Aaron D Borden]

Hello folks,

OLPC San Francisco will be hosting our monthly meeting NEXT Saturday,
May 21st, **not** our usual second Saturday, from 10AM - 1PM at the
downtown SFSU campus, 835 Market Street, 5th floor, Room 597 (the
fishbowl).

Agenda
- Meet and greet
- Sugarizer
- Discuss online community
- Project updates

Our meetings are held on the second Saturday of every month (although
this month we're on the third). Everyone is welcome to join us for our
monthly meeting! We'll be discussing the latest in OLPC events and give
updates on our local (and global) projects. There will be plenty of XO
laptops with the latest builds to play around with, too.

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/788403134637373/
Google+ https://plus.google.com/events/ck02698r7spbt846d5ks6rkr9o0


--
Aaron D Borden
Human and Hacker


signature.asc
Description: signature
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard 
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
>> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
>> expenditures
>> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
>> >>
>> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>> >
>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>> >
>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
>> Agreement.
>> >
>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>> >
>> > "Fees.
>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>> >
>> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
>> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
>> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
>> >
>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>> >
>> > cjl
>>
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>>
>
> There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands
> unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
>
> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>>
>
> 10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
> days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
> carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
>
>
According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent (10%)
of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
operations.

Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions made
to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
early this year);



Total Income 10% of Total Income Donated To SFC Difference





2015 $9.028,56 $902,86 $12.683,40 ($11.780,54)
2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22 $11.780,54 ($6.818,32)
2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92 $6.818,34 ($1.895,42)





*Total* *$107.879,93* *$10.787,99* *$31.282,28* *($20.494,29)*


Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect those
> and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if we as a
> community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
>

Adam,

I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so we
can clarify the numbers.

Thanks in advance,
laura v


>
>> cjl
>>
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Sameer Verma]

Approve.

Sameer
On May 6, 2016 4:49 PM, "Walter Bender"  wrote:

> At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the motion
> submitted by Sebastian Silva to allow the mentors participating in Google
> Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see
> fit. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.
>
> Background: Every year, Google provides mentoring organizations with a
> stipend for the mentors. In our first year of participation in the program,
> Sugar Labs mentors agreed to have the stipend directed to the Sugar Labs
> general funds. We have followed the same procedure in subsequent years.
> This year, however, several mentors asked if they could have access to the
> stipends (which are allocated per student internship). We discussed this at
> the meeting and agreed that it would be appropriate to offer these funds as
> compensation and thanks to the mentors for their time and expertise (there
> were no objections raised). We need to vote on this however, since the
> funds are given to the mentoring organization, not the individual mentors.
>
> Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation
> for a vote on the following motion. (Note that since I am a mentor, I think
> I must recuse myself from the vote.)
>
> Motion: to allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
> disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep