[IAEP] Sugar Labs Wiki Gardening Event reminder

[Walter Bender]

We will be meeting this weekend (14-15 May 2016) to do a major cleanup of
the Sugar Labs wiki (wiki.sugarlabs.org). Feel free to join us in person
(MIT W31-302) [1] or on line in the #sugar-meeting IRC channel on
freenode.net.

We'll begin at 10AM ET (14UTC) [2].

regards.

-walter

[1] http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=W31
[2]
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160514T10=43=Wiki+Gardening+Event=cursive

-- 
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

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-13 2:16 GMT+08:00 Chris Leonard :

> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Silva
>  wrote:
> > El 12/05/16 a las 10:33, Chris Leonard escribió:
> >> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
> >> the event afterwards (in Spanish),
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
> > was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
> > translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
> > year).
> >
> > Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
> > if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
> > plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara
> language.
> >
> >
>
> Issues of language are best to the members of language communities to
> resolve amongst themselves.  In the end of the day, a deploying
> organization is going to be able to make the final decision about what
> is deployed, as MinEdPeru did.


I agree. Still, I believe collaboration should be promoted, not
competition. Hopefully they did met, shake hands and get happy about the
work they end up making together.


>   In reviewing the number of changes
> made to the existing base of Aymara translations I seem to recall
> seeing something on the order of 1,000 changes, which is actually
> quite small when you consider that there were 20,000 entries in the
> system, representing a 5% diff in an important language where Sugar
> Labs represents the only substantive L10n effort that I have seen.
>

Indeed. As Sebastian mentions, Roger was selected and hired by MinEdu to
polish Edgar's and José Henry Alanoca's (rip) and initial work.


> The work that Edgar did from the time of the Sugar Labs Lima meeting
> until the MinEdPeru made a decision to hire someone to incorporate it
> into a build for deployment was remarkable and an excellent investment
> of Sugar Labs L10n funds.


Are you making a reference to the funds invested by SL on 2011 Sugar camp
Lima? or were there direct payments?


> "If you build it they will come" is an
> approach that may only succeed in a circumstance like Peru.  I only
> wish we had someone like Edgar working on Quechua (Cuzco-Collao).


Let's analyse what worked for Edgar that did not work for Irma, the former
Quechua team leader.


>

I hope to see efforts on other Peruvian languages that can make the
> leap to deployment that Edgar made possible for Aymara.
>
cjl
>

We all. I would start by suggesting some basic investment into upstreamming
Awajún.

Best regards,
Laura


> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
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] SL member list/joining criterion

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Adam

On 12 May 2016 at 15:33, Adam Holt  wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> 1. A section of the doc is available live here,
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List
>>
>> 2. That doc shows 279 members
>>
>> I've requested access to the doc :) Thanks Samson!
>
>
> I'm NOT questioning Dave Crosslands' personal ethics (although many question
> his employer's ethics privately)

I'm contractually bound to clarify this: Google is a client of my
employer, a UK company of which I am one of the directors, and I'm not
an employee of Google, and nothing I do should be construed as
representing Google or any of the company's other clients (BBC, etc.)

> however more generally there's a very
> serious institutional/fiduciary problem here, if SL members' non-publishable
> personal data is being shared with someone who is not a member of Sugar
> Labs, as Dave Crossland recently stated he is still not a member of SL?
> That may have changed in recent weeks, but again we have no way of knowing,
> which is the core issue :)

I am now a Member, as you can see at the end of the list of members in
the link I provided :)

> FWIW many serious organizations wait years before providing this level of
> access (database of all their members) for profound reasons of
> conflict-of-interest, and accidental-or-worse-intentional abuse of personal
> data.

Those organizations' data is probably more substantial, though. Eg, a
database of all Mossack Fonseca's clients is rather different to the
database of volunteers for a free software project (which is already
public given the public nature of the services rendered voluntarily in
public bug trackers, mailing lists, etc.)

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

Re: [IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion

[Adam Holt]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> 1. A section of the doc is available live here,
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List
>
> 2. That doc shows 279 members
>
> I've requested access to the doc :) Thanks Samson!
>

I'm NOT questioning Dave Crosslands' personal ethics (although many
question his employer's ethics privately) however more generally there's a
very serious institutional/fiduciary problem here, if SL members'
non-publishable personal data is being shared with someone who is not a
member of Sugar Labs, as Dave Crossland recently stated he is still not a
member of SL?  That may have changed in recent weeks, but again we have no
way of knowing, which is the core issue :)

FWIW many serious organizations wait years before providing this level of
access (database of all their members) for profound reasons of
conflict-of-interest, and accidental-or-worse-intentional abuse of personal
data.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion

[Adam Holt]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:00 PM, samson goddy 
wrote:

>
> Hello Adam, here is the list you ask for. You can ask sebastian about the
> election list.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit?usp=sharing_eid
> this list contain the names and email addresses of all sugarlabs member.
> But i don't know who is active.
>

Thanks!  As the above member list/voter list document is not public beyond
Caryl/Sebastian/yourself presumably, apparently because it contains
personal info that must be redacted (email addresses and other info that
should not be published without permission?) can you:

(1) publish a redacted public document somewhere for all, conscious of
everyone's privacy?
(2) consider sending a full copy to sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org for
institutional safekeeping?

PS if personal info is being stored outside of public view, on both current
and non-current members -- we should explain our data privacy practices
briefly.  Busy people whose memberships have lapsed might later choose to
rejoin -- but have a right to know what personal privacy data SL is storing
about them (and does that include their voting records or not, etc).
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

1. A section of the doc is available live here,
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List

2. That doc shows 279 members

I've requested access to the doc :) Thanks Samson!

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

Re: [IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion

[samson goddy]

Hello Adam, here is the list you ask for. You can ask sebastian about the 
election list. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit?usp=sharing_eid
this list contain the names and email addresses of all sugarlabs member. But i 
don't know who is active. Also i sent you a private message which i am waiting 
for your reply. 

Thanks
Samson Goddy
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:44:57 -0400
Subject: SL member list/joining criterion
From: h...@laptop.org
To: cbige...@hotmail.com; sebast...@fuentelibre.org; samsongo...@hotmail.com; 
iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org

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] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Chris Leonard]

 I meant to type "Issues of language are best left to the members of
language communities to resolve amongst themselves."

cjl

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chris Leonard  wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Silva
>  wrote:
>> El 12/05/16 a las 10:33, Chris Leonard escribió:
>>> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
>>> the event afterwards (in Spanish),
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
>> was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
>> translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
>> year).
>>
>> Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
>> if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
>> plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara language.
>>
>>
>
> Issues of language are best to the members of language communities to
> resolve amongst themselves.  In the end of the day, a deploying
> organization is going to be able to make the final decision about what
> is deployed, as MinEdPeru did.  In reviewing the number of changes
> made to the existing base of Aymara translations I seem to recall
> seeing something on the order of 1,000 changes, which is actually
> quite small when you consider that there were 20,000 entries in the
> system, representing a 5% diff in an important language where Sugar
> Labs represents the only substantive L10n effort that I have seen.
> The work that Edgar did from the time of the Sugar Labs Lima meeting
> until the MinEdPeru made a decision to hire someone to incorporate it
> into a build for deployment was remarkable and an excellent investment
> of Sugar Labs L10n funds.  "If you build it they will come" is an
> approach that may only succeed in a circumstance like Peru.  I only
> wish we had someone like Edgar working on Quechua (Cuzco-Collao).
>
> I hope to see efforts on other Peruvian languages that can make the
> leap to deployment that Edgar made possible for Aymara.
>
> 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] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Chris Leonard]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Silva
 wrote:
> El 12/05/16 a las 10:33, Chris Leonard escribió:
>> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
>> the event afterwards (in Spanish),
>
> Great!
>
> Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
> was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
> translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
> year).
>
> Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
> if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
> plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara language.
>
>

Issues of language are best to the members of language communities to
resolve amongst themselves.  In the end of the day, a deploying
organization is going to be able to make the final decision about what
is deployed, as MinEdPeru did.  In reviewing the number of changes
made to the existing base of Aymara translations I seem to recall
seeing something on the order of 1,000 changes, which is actually
quite small when you consider that there were 20,000 entries in the
system, representing a 5% diff in an important language where Sugar
Labs represents the only substantive L10n effort that I have seen.
The work that Edgar did from the time of the Sugar Labs Lima meeting
until the MinEdPeru made a decision to hire someone to incorporate it
into a build for deployment was remarkable and an excellent investment
of Sugar Labs L10n funds.  "If you build it they will come" is an
approach that may only succeed in a circumstance like Peru.  I only
wish we had someone like Edgar working on Quechua (Cuzco-Collao).

I hope to see efforts on other Peruvian languages that can make the
leap to deployment that Edgar made possible for Aymara.

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] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sebastian Silva]

El 12/05/16 a las 10:33, Chris Leonard escribió:
> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
> the event afterwards (in Spanish),

Great!

Please note that one of the speakers (Roger Gonzalo) is the person that
was hired by the Ministry of Education to polish Edgar's Sugar Aymara
translations (at the same time that Edgar was hired by Sugar Labs last
year).

Since their work conflicted, it would be interesting to hear from Edgar
if he had a conversation about it with Roger and what conclusions /
plans they have to resolve their conflicts with regard to Aymara language.


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

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

Hi!

On 12 May 2016 at 11:33, Chris Leonard  wrote:

> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
> the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
> Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
> English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
> Community Manager activities.
>

I suggest setting this up as a Jeykll blog on Github, or as a wordpress
blog that is developed via Github (there's an excellent wordpress plugin
for this :)


> Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
> I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
> requests.  It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
> when someone is sent to a conference on company time.  This practice
> provides a further return on investment.  Not only are your ideas
> shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
> conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
> funding.
>

I agree completely :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
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 Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY  wrote:
>>
>> Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers".
>
>
> Well, there's now a paid Translatoins Manager


Yes there is and I am sympathetic to those who find their wish to
volunteer made difficult by personal finances.

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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY  wrote:

> Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers".
>

Well, there's now a paid Translatoins Manager
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Chris Leonard]

I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
Community Manager activities.

Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
requests.  It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
when someone is sent to a conference on company time.  This practice
provides a further return on investment.  Not only are your ideas
shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
funding.

cjl

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Walter Bender  wrote:
> I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
> side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
>
> Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
> interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
> total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to $168.88.
> The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with Aymara
> i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
> region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter Bender
> as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip Advisor grant
> and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's report is
> at [2].
>
> Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing Sugar
> Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú
> meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
>
> -walter
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
> [2]
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
> 
> Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
> Subject: approval details for Quispe-Chambi trip expenses? (was: Fwd:
> Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
> To: su...@sfconservancy.org
>
>
> I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
> Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
>
> However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may be
> rejected because of this.  The information I have is:
>
> El mar. 18, 2016 5:52 AM, "Walter Bender" 
> escribió:
>>> Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
>>> SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
>>> we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
>>> advance.
>
> I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
> between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
> Can someone send that along, please?  A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
> where it was approved are fine.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Bradley M. Kuhn
> President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
>  |--> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.
> Pls donate so we can increase staff: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>
>
>
> --
> 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

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

[Sean DALY]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Sam Parkinson 
wrote:

> Us volunteers write code, make releases, do user testing, etc.


Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers".

Dues are how many if not most normally functioning nonprofits operate. I am
co-founder and treasurer of a small musical event nonprofit and dues are
the major source of annual income to cover expenses. I am also on the board
of a medium sized nonprofit (library support, >300 members) and the major
portion of operating revenue is from dues. I pay dues to a musical
instruction association, and vote for officers. Etc.

I believe collecting dues is a fine idea. Arrangements are always possible
for the levels - my musical nonprofit has regular dues at €20,
family/household at €30, student/unemployed at €10, sponsor at €100 (their
names are printed on the programs).

Of course, dues paying members expect and are entitled to annual financial
reporting.

Sean
___
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]

Hi

On 12 May 2016 at 10:51, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Dues are a bad idea!
> Sorry folks
>

Please could you explain why you think this?

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
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]

Hi

On 12 May 2016 at 09:42, Walter Bender  wrote:

> As Adam has pointed out, this motion has failed to pass. It seems that
> there is some support of the idea of offering at least a portion of the
> GSoC stipend to mentors who need/request the funds, but the form of the
> current motion, putting the authority into the hands of the mentors
> themselves does not have adequate support. Perhaps someone can craft a
> motion that would be better received by the oversight board.
>

I submit the following motion draft for comments, based on Sebastian's
text, which I believe expresses Tony's sentiment, and pays a courtesy to
Lionel's sentiment. With the existing votes for the previous motion plus
Tony's swing vote, the motion can pass.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit


>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> I think it is a stretch to assert that the reason Google chose to pay the
> "mentoring organizations" is because they didn't intend to pay stipends. I
> won't presume to try to second guess Google's intentions, but in fact they
> do refer to the organization payments as "mentor stipends". And I can
> imagine that bypassing the paperwork associated with making transactions
> with individual mentors would be a strong motivation to pass the fund
> through the parent organization.
>

I agree with Walter; I think what Sugar is doing is very peculiar, and in
fact I had the incorrect impression from the GSoC website that I would be
paid directly by them.

(The paperwork is actually not that much, because they use one of those
'gift card' like debit card vendors to send the payments, so all they need
is a name and mailing address to send what is for a company like that a
token amount.)


> 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.
>>
> I don't see how the proposal to pay mentors stipends in any way shows lack
> of respect to either Sugar Labs, its volunteer community, or the mentors
> themselves.
>

I agree. Adam, please could you tell us more about why you think GSOC
payments to mentors (and presumably students as well, being several
multiples of the mentor's fee) are disrespectful; do you think that GSOC
itself is disrespectful, and Sugar Labs should not engage in it in future?


> 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.
>>
> In fact, whereas most of the mentors were not intending to take the money,
> the outcome would have been even more generous to Sugar Labs than the plan
> you are proposing.
>

Well, Adam is suggesting to discriminate based on location, rather than
actual need, and I think of the dozen mentors who joined the GSOC web app,
only 2 or 3 are not in or from high income countries.

But I disagree with such discrimination; if a mentor is currently
unemployed in NYC, then I think for anyone unemployed anywhere then $500
can make a big difference; however by the time the stipend becomes
available, such a mentor hopefully could have become employed! :) But if
not, the need will surely be greater than it would be at the start of the
GSOC.

> 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 

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

[Caryl Bigenho]

Dues are a bad idea!
Sorry folks
Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11 May 2016 at 22:28, Sam Parkinson  wrote:
>> Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free 
>> Software orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.
> 
> 
> Its very common for clubs/nonprofits to do this. FSF, Conservancy, TUG, UKTUG 
> run membership programs, and I also pay member dues to several typography 
> non-profits (ATypI, SoTA, TDC) and in the past for a sailing club.
> ___
> 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___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Fwd: [SLOB] GPLv3 motion

[Dave Crossland]

On 12 May 2016 at 09:19, Walter Bender  wrote:

> the motion has passed.


Thanks Walter!
___
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 22:28, Sam Parkinson  wrote:

> Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free
> Software orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.
>

Its very common for clubs/nonprofits to do this. FSF, Conservancy, TUG,
UKTUG run membership programs, and I also pay member dues to several
typography non-profits (ATypI, SoTA, TDC) and in the past for a sailing
club.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Walter Bender]

I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).

Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to
$168.88. The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience
with Aymara i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages
in the region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter
Bender as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip
Advisor grant and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting.
Edgar's report is at [2].

Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing Sugar
Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

-walter

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
[2]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing

-- Forwarded message --
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
account...@sfconservancy.org>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Subject: approval details for Quispe-Chambi trip expenses? (was: Fwd:
Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
To: su...@sfconservancy.org


I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.

However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may be
rejected because of this.  The information I have is:

El mar. 18, 2016 5:52 AM, "Walter Bender" 
escribió:
>> Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
>> SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
>> we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
>> advance.

I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
Can someone send that along, please?  A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
where it was approved are fine.

[snip]

--
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
 |--> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.
Pls donate so we can increase staff: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/



-- 
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

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

[Walter Bender]

As Adam has pointed out, this motion has failed to pass. It seems that
there is some support of the idea of offering at least a portion of the
GSoC stipend to mentors who need/request the funds, but the form of the
current motion, putting the authority into the hands of the mentors
themselves does not have adequate support. Perhaps someone can craft a
motion that would be better received by the oversight board.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Adam Holt  wrote:

> 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?
>
I think it is a stretch to assert that the reason Google chose to pay the
"mentoring organizations" is because they didn't intend to pay stipends. I
won't presume to try to second guess Google's intentions, but in fact they
do refer to the organization payments as "mentor stipends". And I can
imagine that bypassing the paperwork associated with making transactions
with individual mentors would be a strong motivation to pass the fund
through the parent organization.

> 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.
>
I don't see how the proposal to pay mentors stipends in any way shows lack
of respect to either Sugar Labs, its volunteer community, or the mentors
themselves.

> 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.
>

In fact, whereas most of the mentors were not intending to take the money,
the outcome would have been even more generous to Sugar Labs than the plan
you are proposing.

> 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??)
>

I have volunteered time and money to Sugar Labs over the years and plan to
continue to do so. But I think it is a mistake to assume that every mentor
has the wherewithal to do the same. Community members already "pay for
something they believe in" by donating their time, expertise, et al. to
Sugar Labs. Not everyone has the financial resources of those of us who
live in North America or Western Europe.

> > 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 

[IAEP] Fwd: [SLOB] GPLv3 motion

[Walter Bender]

My sincerest apologies. I realize I forgot to CC the lists on this email.

So far we have approval for the motion from:

Walter, Sameer, Claudia, José MIguel, Tony, and Lionel. Still waiting to
hear back from Adam, but as you can see, the motion has passed.

regards.

-walter

-- Forwarded message --
From: Walter Bender 
Date: Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM
Subject: [SLOB] GPLv3 motion
To: SLOBs 


At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the motion
submitted by Sebastian Silva to finalize the transition from GPLv2 to GPLv3
for the Sugar core libraries (Sugar Activity developers are still free to
choose whatever Libre license they prefer for their work.) See [2]. I
second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.

Background: In 2011 a referendum was held among the membership of Sugar
Labs.

"Based on a sheer count of 1st place votes, v3 received 49% of the vote,
v2 received 29% of the vote, and the apathetic position received the
remaining 22% of the vote."

http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/032529.html

A detailed discussion about the rationale for the change can be found at
[3]. In the more recent discussion at [2], there was some concern regarding
the OLPC anti-theft system, but James Cameron said "Therefore, no
relicensing obstacle as far as OLPC anti-theft is concerned."

Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation for
a vote on the following motion.

Motion: Complete the transition to GPLv3 for Sugar core libraries as per PR
#685 (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685).

regards.

-walter

[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
[2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
[3] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2011-April/030926.html

--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org



-- 
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

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

[samson goddy]

+ 1 to Sam P.

Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:28:23 +1000
From: sam.parkins...@gmail.com
To: la...@somosazucar.org
CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; d...@lab6.com
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open 
issues to discuss

I'm not a big fan of this idea.
The SLOBs already seem to have some capital.  But they seem to be scared to 
spend it.  How much arguing have we done over the translation co-ordinator 
position?  Something like a translation position would be great, but nobody has 
seemed to actually do anything to put in into action.
Meanwhile, Sugar continues to evolve.  Us volunteers write code, make releases, 
do user testing, etc.  This is not stuff that the SLOBs has helped with, not in 
a way that I am aware of at lest.
Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free Software 
orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.
So my opinion is that the SLOBS should do something before seeking to raise 
additional funding, especially in this odd way.
Thanks,Sam

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Laura Vargas  wrote:



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!




___
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

[Sam Parkinson]

I'm not a big fan of this idea.

The SLOBs already seem to have some capital.  But they seem to be 
scared to spend it.  How much arguing have we done over the translation 
co-ordinator position?  Something like a translation position would be 
great, but nobody has seemed to actually do anything to put in into 
action.


Meanwhile, Sugar continues to evolve.  Us volunteers write code, make 
releases, do user testing, etc.  This is not stuff that the SLOBs has 
helped with, not in a way that I am aware of at lest.


Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free 
Software orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.


So my opinion is that the SLOBS should do something before seeking to 
raise additional funding, especially in this odd way.


Thanks,
Sam

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Laura Vargas  
wrote:



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