Re: [IAEP] Sugar network / School Network

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-18 6:47 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
> Hi!
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 17:54, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> 2016-05-15 22:53 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland :
>>
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On 15 May 2016 at 13:29, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>>
 Sugar Network is up the air, and it has more than 35.000 users. You can
 find the stats here> http://network.sugarlabs.org/stats-viewer/

>>>
>>> WOW!!! That stats page is AMAZING!! :D
>>>
>>
>> :D Thx! Those are node statistics.
>>
>> "The node statistics are about the entire server and *depersonalized*.
>> Statistics are being collected by analyzing regular requests to an API
>> server and stored for each Sugar Network node."[1]
>>
>> Currently we have only one node; the one that refers to users that have
>> installed Hexoquinasa (Sugar 0.96+Quechua+Aymara+SN).
>>
>
> Cool!! :D
>
>
>> Deployment of Hexoquinasa started by MinEdu on Peruvian *Public Schools*
>> on the beginnig of School year in 2014. You can tell how the instalation
>> process has evolved from the statistics of total.users graph.
>>
>> You can also find stats from the node usage at:
>> http://jita.sugarlabs.org/node.sugarlabs.org/
>>
>
> WOW!
>
>
>> But having looked at the SN wiki pages in more detail, I am still
>>> confused about Sugar Network
>>>
>>
>> Sugar Network-Sugar Labs wiki pages were originally created by SN backend
>> main developer Aleksey Lim. His efforts to document the SN solution were
>> extensive, yet I do agree this documentation requires some cleaning and
>> updating.
>>
>
>> Any specific question, please ask.
>>
>
> Am I correct in understanding that an effort to set up School Network as a
> separate organisation is abandoned?
>
>

I am not aware there was ever and effort in this direction.


> it seems to have no activity in the last 8 months;
>>>
>>
>> That is not that much for a wiki page :D
>>
>
> ;)
>
>
>> I don't understand why it isn't a part of Sugar itself;
>>>
>>
>> Not yet but I hope the day will come. We certainly could use new/good
>> energies and funding to continue this endevour. I would like to quote James
>> Cameron from OLPC about SN:
>>
>> "I'd like to see Sugar Labs focus on making Sugar Network more
>> available.  It has clearly, by the numbers, outdone the original OLPC
>> school server concept."
>>
>> We should open debate for SL-SN future and define strategy and concrete
>> actions.
>>
>
> I agree - and James sage advice is classic :)
>
>
>>
>> I don't understand how it raised a small fund for development labour -
>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Crowd_funding/Sugar_Network#Overall_progress
>>> -
>>>
>>
>> After Sugar Camp Lima 2011, Bernie Innocenti, Juan Camilo Lema, Aleksey
>> Lim, Sebastian Silva and I, understood the need for SN and with time
>> generosity and very limited funds we made it happen; In order to be able to
>> actually deploy the solution on the field, we had to get to the MinEdu
>> offices with the solution tested and ready to go, and that's what we did.
>>
>
> AMAZING :D
>
>
>
>> and then seems to have stopped without posting why.
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sugar-network seems dormant
>>> since 2014.
>>>
>>
>> We haven't stoped.  Aleksey did work on a new frontend prototype called
>> School Network, while Sebastian and I continue to monitor and admin the
>> contents provided by the children in the original node.
>>
>
> Great :D
>
>
>> But since it 2 of the 3 key people I could find listed are you and
>>> Sebastian, I hope you can refresh the wiki page section to explain these
>>> things :)
>>>
>> We haven't heared back from Aleksey in a while,
>>
>
> He's totally gone, I think: He told me privately that Sugar Labs was his
> first experience as a FOSS contributor, and he worked full time on Sugar,
> but stepped aside partly because he wanted a higher income, and partly
> because he wanted to work in edutech in his own country, which was not
> adopting Sugar.
>
>
I hope in the near future SL develops the capacity to retain talented
developers.


> So I don't expect he will contribute to Sugar again :/
>
>
>> and this is a shame as his contributions for learners to have access to a
>> friendly - libre - open - digital communication exchange platform
>> were major and have been recognized [2].
>>
>
> :D
>
>
>> There are many functionalities that SN provides; content creation,
>> content exchange, activities distribution, feedback from field (questions,
>> ideas, problems), etc, still many more can be done, for example as Tony
>> Anderson once noted, SN is still bound to internet access as the sneakernet
>> functionality was not fully implemented.
>>
>
> Okay cool. Is there a public roadmap document?
>

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Network/1.0/Roadmap


>
>
>> Hopefully -somehow- we will be able to upstream the solution for Sugar.
>> But this will require going thru the components and features, in order to
>> integrate them 

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

[Caryl Bigenho]

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 18, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Sean DALY  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly 
>> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.
> 
> 
> ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the 
> meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate but 
> before a vote.
> 
Much of the recent gridlock in the meetings has been as a result of trying to 
do what you suggest. If at least discussing in advance, if not actually voting, 
can happen, the SLOB might actually be able to get more things done in the 
meetings.


> Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every 
> single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason 
> isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant about 
> bureaucracy, that's all.
> 
> Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering system 
> such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing previous 
> decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which could be used 
> to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be more easily listed 
> for governance history.

Dave and I have already done this with Motions A, B, C, and D. (In CA we use 
both letters and numbers for propositions).
> 
> Sean
> 
> ___
> Lista olpc-Sur
> olpc-...@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur

Caryl___
Lista olpc-Sur
olpc-...@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur
___
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] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> Done.



Wow! bravo Walter that was quick!!
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] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the
>>> monthly SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.
>>
>>
>>
>> ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the
>> meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate
>> but before a vote.
>>
>> Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every
>> single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason
>> isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant
>> about bureaucracy, that's all.
>>
>> Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering
>> system such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing
>> previous decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which
>> could be used to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be
>> more easily listed for governance history.
>>
>
> Nice idea. I could start by numbering the motions listed in [1].
>
>
Done.


> -walter
>
>>
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
> [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions
>
> --
> 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] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY  wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly
>> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.
>
>
>
> ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the
> meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate
> but before a vote.
>
> Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every
> single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason
> isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant
> about bureaucracy, that's all.
>
> Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering
> system such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing
> previous decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which
> could be used to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be
> more easily listed for governance history.
>

Nice idea. I could start by numbering the motions listed in [1].

-walter

>
>
> Sean
>
>
[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

-- 
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] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly
> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs.



ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the
meetings, with recourse to e-mail when meeting time ran out after debate
but before a vote.

Nobody's in thrall to a higher power here, and if the SFC requires every
single expenditure to be voted, there is a reason, and perhaps the reason
isn't valid. With resources limited as they are, we need to be vigilant
about bureaucracy, that's all.

Speaking of which, the SLOBs may wish to consider a motion numbering system
such as is used by legislatures. It could simplify referencing previous
decisions, in particular providing a search engine handle which could be
used to reconcile authorized expenditures. And motions could be more easily
listed for governance history.

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

Re: [IAEP] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

On 18 May 2016 at 13:07, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Dave Crossland has proposed 2 additional motions that are linked at the
> bottom of the first 2 motions. They are still in the editing stage as far
> as I can see.
>

I am waiting for Adam to draft what he wanted to see there :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi Again…
I just changed it so that the SLOB members can edit the motions. Please! Don't 
Edit Until You Have Discussed and Reached Consensis! 

Caryl
From: cbige...@hotmail.com
To: olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; d...@lab6.com; h...@laptop.org; 
walter.ben...@gmail.com; callaur...@gmail.com; lio...@olpc-france.org; 
sve...@sfsu.edu; logo...@gmail.com; t...@olenepal.org
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:07:02 -0700
CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: [IAEP] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] 
another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)




Hi Folks…
I think it is time to take action on the 2 motions I have for the SLOB. Motion 
A is for a Finance Manager and Motion B lays out the procedures for requesting 
and disbursing funds. A lot of editing has been done by a few people, but the 
amounts for $Y (a stipend for the FM) and $X the amount that a member can 
request from the FM for "petty cash" type expenses were still undefined. I put 
the "petty cash" limit at $200 although I feel that is a bit excessive. I would 
have preferred $100.  $Y, a stipend for the FM would be set periodically by the 
SLOB.
Motion A can stand alone. Motion B is moot is Motion A fails.
We could keep on editing but I think it is time to take action on these 2 
motions to clear up some of the issues in recent discussions.  Therefore, I 
have removed the editing and commenting for these 2 motions so you can decide, 
up or down, on them in their present state. 
Dave Crossland has proposed 2 additional motions that are linked at the bottom 
of the first 2 motions. They are still in the editing stage as far as I can see.
So… here are my 2 motions for consideration by the SLOB. Perhaps you can have 
an open discussion and come to a vote sometime in the near 
future.https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks to everyone who has commented, edited and expanded these motions.
Caryl

  

___
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] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi Folks…
I think it is time to take action on the 2 motions I have for the SLOB. Motion 
A is for a Finance Manager and Motion B lays out the procedures for requesting 
and disbursing funds. A lot of editing has been done by a few people, but the 
amounts for $Y (a stipend for the FM) and $X the amount that a member can 
request from the FM for "petty cash" type expenses were still undefined. I put 
the "petty cash" limit at $200 although I feel that is a bit excessive. I would 
have preferred $100.  $Y, a stipend for the FM would be set periodically by the 
SLOB.
Motion A can stand alone. Motion B is moot is Motion A fails.
We could keep on editing but I think it is time to take action on these 2 
motions to clear up some of the issues in recent discussions.  Therefore, I 
have removed the editing and commenting for these 2 motions so you can decide, 
up or down, on them in their present state. 
Dave Crossland has proposed 2 additional motions that are linked at the bottom 
of the first 2 motions. They are still in the editing stage as far as I can see.
So… here are my 2 motions for consideration by the SLOB. Perhaps you can have 
an open discussion and come to a vote sometime in the near 
future.https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks to everyone who has commented, edited and expanded these motions.
Caryl

  ___
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] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal
> financial responsibility for the Conservancy account.


In my view it's theoretically reasonable, however there is a real risk of
red tape logjam. It's quite common for orgs to set a reasonable amount
limit for expenditures not requiring formal votes, to reduce bureaucratic
delays (i.e. waiting for the next meeting then spending time on it). It's
also quite common for all such expenses to be accounted for anyway, and for
the limit to be adjusted up or down per requirements, to better focus on
the important issues at hand.

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

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

[Adam Holt]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal,
> this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already
> approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the
> Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's
> discretion as well. Nonetheless, for some reason or other, the SFC seems to
> think that every outlay requires explicit approval from the entire board.
> Further, it is not like this was an attempt to blind-side or circumvent the
> board. I brought this up several months ago, but we have not managed to
> vote on it.
>
> Finally, I find the "wait-until-the-last-moment-to-object" style of
> discourse to be highly unprofessional. I reiterate, this has been on the
> table for months as has been the opportunity for feedback and discussion.
>

My own hope is that Sugar Labs seek a new tone of governance, putting aside
baseless ad hominem attacks against on its own board members and
hard-working sponsoring organization (SFConservancy.org), who happen to
prefer more transparent and understandable financials.

My hope is that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard's monthly blog
(and similar) will be just the beginning to show us all this upfront,
honorable, inclusive-of-all-kinds-of-people (even accountants, if we are to
grow this movement) approach is in fact possible beginning in 2016.

-walter
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Lionel Laské 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 for the remark of Adam.
>> +1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.
>>
>>Lionel.
>>
>> 2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :
>>
>>> I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
>>> unprofessional, in all instances.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
>>> that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
>>> situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
>>> happening and why.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Chris Leonard <
>>> cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> 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.

 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.
 >
 

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

[Dave Crossland]

On 18 May 2016 at 10:05, Walter Bender  wrote:

> for some reason or other, the SFC seems to think that every outlay
> requires explicit approval from the entire board


FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal
financial responsibility for the Conservancy account.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Walter Bender]

FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal,
this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already
approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the
Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's
discretion as well. Nonetheless, for some reason or other, the SFC seems to
think that every outlay requires explicit approval from the entire board.
Further, it is not like this was an attempt to blind-side or circumvent the
board. I brought this up several months ago, but we have not managed to
vote on it.

Finally, I find the "wait-until-the-last-moment-to-object" style of
discourse to be highly unprofessional. I reiterate, this has been on the
table for months as has been the opportunity for feedback and discussion.

-walter

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Lionel Laské 
wrote:

>
> +1 for the remark of Adam.
> +1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.
>
>Lionel.
>
> 2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :
>
>> I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
>> unprofessional, in all instances.
>>
>> Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
>> that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
>> situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
>> happening and why.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> >
>>> > 

[IAEP] Deployments seeking volunteers?

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

In https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vacancies I see a link to
http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg10937.html

Is this deployment still active? :)

Are any other deployments seeking volunteers in 2016?

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

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

[Lionel Laské]

+1 for the remark of Adam.
+1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.

   Lionel.

2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :

> I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
> unprofessional, in all instances.
>
> Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
> that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
> situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
> happening and why.
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, 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.
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
>> http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 98, Issue 52

[Tony Anderson]

The information collected at first boot is not relevant to any personal 
research. At deployments I am
familiar with, the first boot is done at installation time to check the 
install and perform configuration.
At this time, the laptop has not been assigned to a user. For 
deployments I work with, the gender is

to male and the age to grade 4 to save time.

Tony

On 05/17/2016 10:00 PM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

Send IAEP mailing list submissions to
iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
iaep-ow...@lists.sugarlabs.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of IAEP digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Sugar network / School Network (Chris Leonard)
2. Re: Sugar network / School Network (Dave Crossland)
3. Fwd:  Sugar network / School Network (Sean DALY)
4. Re: Sugar network / School Network (Dave Crossland)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:10:10 -0400
From: Chris Leonard 
To: Dave Crossland 
Cc: "sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org" ,
"iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org" , Samuel
Greenfeld , Laura Vargas 
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Sugar network / School Network
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

Hi

Thanks for the lengthy explanation :) I think I understand your position
better now :)

On 17 May 2016 at 12:14, Chris Leonard  wrote:


any form of human subjects research


Is https://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/statistics/ "human subjects
research"?

In the legal sense, it is whatever a court of competent jurisdiction
determines it to be.  In general, our basic web-stats do not appear to
have the characteristics one typically associates with human subjects
research, some characteristics, like aggregation, anonymization, etc.
are in fact steps taken to deliberately place certain research
activities outside of the scope of human subjects protections (like
requirements for institutional review board approval, etc.).

If you start drilling down to collecting IP numbers (say for
geo-location) and other bits of data that *might* be mapped (alone or
in combination with any other information sitting around) to the
identifiable user level, you are getting into much deeper water.

Even if you can figure out a way to accomplish your goals in
compliance with the law, you should also ask yourself 'How would this
look from the point of view of the fairly stringent privacy
expectations held by the people that Sugar Labs aligns itself in the
world of FOSS".  While generally not a matter of legal consequence, we
do operate in an ecosystem where we are very dependent of people and
organizations who take a dim view of anything that could be construed
as "snooping", and that should probably be taken into account.


One should never read the CFR and
make a determination that it "does not apply to me" without consulting
with a lawyer.  That way lies madness as well as potential fines and
imprisonment.


Has anyone involved with Sugar Labs consulted with any lawyers on any legal
topics?

As a Sugar Labs Member, how do I consult with a lawyer?

In general, the same way any one else would, a) get the yellow pages
b) turn to the "L" section, then back to the "A" section because
lawyers are listed as attorneys. . .  etc., etc.  You seem to be
proposing a personal activity, not one undertaken collectively by the
corporate Sugar Labs entity, so knock yourself out and be careful,
lawyers are expensive, but in some cases not as expensive as not
having one.

Our fiscal sponsorship agreement with the SFC provides for some
specific cases where the SFC might provide legal assistance, but I'm
not really sure if this is one of them.  You could ask the SLOB to
communicate on your behalf with the SFC to see if this is an area
where they can provide any advice.

cjl


--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:21:12 -0400
From: Dave Crossland 
To: Samuel Greenfeld 
Cc: sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org, iaep 
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Sugar network / School Network
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Sam

On 17 May 2016 at 13:55, Samuel Greenfeld  wrote:


I think there may be a difference between research studies