Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] minutes from 3 June 2016 oversight board meeting

[Dave Crossland]

On Jun 3, 2016 6:19 PM, "Walter Bender"  wrote:
>
> I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but
I have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness
for this meeting. Several community members had been working on motions,
requesting comments and feedback over the course of several months. And yet
it was only during the meeting itself that feedback from committee members
was forthcoming.

I want to commend the board on a very different meeting today: working
together to get motions ready to pass, or passing them despite minor
wording or other minor concerns at today's meeting.

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

Re: [IAEP] Simplified Motion to create and define the position of Sugar Labs Finance Manager

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

Congratulations to Caryl and Adam for finally getting the Finance
Manager position approved! :) Hooray!! :D

On 1 July 2016 at 14:10, Adam Holt  wrote:
> PS this is very hard work (and I am not yet sure how to determine SL's exact
> balance on April 1st 2016) but an early example of a possible quarterly
> finance report is below:

It seems that the FM office is now open, and the next step is for the
board to appoint someone and agree a stipend for them.

Adam has largely been volunteering to do a less defined role, with his
ledger-cli skillz, and in the SLOB meeting today volunteered to assume
the role until a professional can be found and appointed.

I am also willing to volunteer for the appointment, and work with Adam
to make the ledger-cli black arts a little less severe.

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

[IAEP] Simplified Motion to create and define the position of Sugar Labs Finance Manager

[Adam Holt]

Based on Tony Anderson and Caryl Bigenho's work especially -- thank you
Caryl for working for so many months with so many others (including many
hours by telephone today with me alone) to write this up -- and thanks to
many others who've contributed behind the scenes:


The Sugar Labs Oversight Board shall appoint a Finance Manager by majority
vote from among the members of Sugar Labs Oversight Board. The Finance
Manager serves at the will of the board. The Finance Manager may be paid a
stipend at the discretion of the board.

Duties of the Finance Manager will be to:

1. Serve as Sugar Lab's central coordinator on all financial matters.

2. Report quarterly at a scheduled Oversight Board meeting the following:

- Confirmation of the accuracy of the previous quarter's report according
to the Software Freedom Conservancy
- Balance at the beginning of the quarter preceding the meeting
- Expenses during the quarter
- Income received during the quarter
- Balance at the end of the quarter

3. The Finance Manager has discretion to approve petty cash amounts up to
$200 to pay for miscellaneous expenditures critical for the functioning of
Sugar Labs. If approved and everything is in order, these will often be
paid within (about) 30 days of when they are submitted to the Software
Freedom Conservancy, who control Sugar Labs' banking. If not approved, the
applicant is free to ask for a vote at a future Oversight Board meeting.

4. All motions for funding of larger projects will be presented first to
the Finance Manager who will review them to be sure the funds are being
used in a way that appears fiscally sound. If everything is in order, the
Finance Manager will place the motion on the agenda for consideration at
the next possible Oversight Board meeting, and circulate on the IAEP
mailing list for public discussion.

5. At the meeting, after a finance motion has been moved and seconded,
discussion should be confined to the motion.


PS this is very hard work (and I am not yet sure how to determine SL's
exact balance on April 1st 2016) but an early example of a possible
quarterly finance report is below:

(0) $7000 received (or soon to be received) from GCI (Google) of which
$6300 for Sugar Labs and $700 for SFConservancy

(1) Walter Bender paid $807.22 for flight to Constructionism 2016
(2) Walter Bender paid $168.60 for hotel at Constructionism 2016
(3) Walter Bender paid $250.00 for registration for Constructionism 2016
(4) Walter Bender paid $3.00 for Boston parking for Constructionism 2016
(5) Walter Bender paid $30.21 for Uber in Thailand Constructionism 2016
(6) Walter Bender paid $130.26 for per diem (personal expenses) at
Constructionism 2016
(7) Walter Bender paid $787.31 for Devin Ulibarri's flight to
Constructionism 2016

Above 7 lines total to $2176.60

(8) Devin Ulibarri paid $380 for registration at Constructionism 2016
(9) Devin Ulibarri paid $168.60 for hotel at Constructionism 2016
(10) Devin Ulibarri paid $354.48 for per diem (personal expenses) at
Constructionism 2016
(11) Devin Ulibarri paid $500 consulting stipend for Constructionism 2016

Above 4 lines total to $903.08

(12) Edgar Quispe Chambi paid (or soon to be paid) $82.25 =
26.66+17.48+32.25+5.86 for bus transport to Simposio Internacial
(translation/Peru)
(13) Edgar Quispe Chambi paid (or soon to be paid) $20.66 for hotel at
Simposio Internacial (translation/Peru)
(14) Edgar Quispe Chambi paid (or soon to be paid) $58.97 per diem
(personal expenses) at Simposio Internacial (translation/Peru)

Above 3 lines total to $161.88

(15) Mariah Noelle Villarreal paid (or soon to be paid) $563.20 for GCI
flight from Boston to SF


BALANCE as of 1 JULY 2016:

$ ledger -V  -s -S T -d  "T<=2" -f sugar.ledger bal
'/^(Income|Expenses).*Sugar/'
   $ -293,399.18  Income:Sugar
$ 210,200.26  Expenses:Sugar

*$ -83,198.92   (Is it possible 10% of this sum must still be paid
to SFConservancy in future? For their accounting/legal services.)*


UNPAID INVOICES as of 1 JULY 2016:

$ ledger -f sugar.ledger -V  --group-by 'tag("Invoice")' bal /^Accrued/
Financial/Invoices/Google-SoC-2015/2015-12-29_Google-SoC-2015_omnibus-travel-rei
  $ 1,914.55  Accrued:Accounts Receivable:Sugar

Projects/Sugar/Expenses/GCI-2016/2016-06-10_Google_Sugar_invoice-2016061000
_as-s
   $ -563.20  Accrued:Accounts Payable:Sugar

Projects/Sugar/Expenses/GSoC-Mentor-Summit-2013/2013-11-08_DeCausemaker_RIT-invo
 $ -0.40  Accrued:Accounts Payable:Sugar

Projects/Sugar/Expenses/I18n-and-T10n/2016-03-20_Quispe_invoice.mbox
   $ -200.00  Accrued:Accounts Payable:Sugar

Projects/Sugar/Expenses/Simposio-Internacial-2016/2016-04-15_Chambi_reimbursemen
   $ -161.88  Accrued:Accounts Payable:Sugar

Projects/Sugar/Invoices/Google/2016-04-04_Google_Sugar-GCI_invoice-
2016040400_as
  $ 7,000.00  Accrued:Accounts Receivable:Sugar


INCOME/EXPENSES BY PROGRAM ACTIVITY as of 1 JULY 2016:

$ ledger --group-by 

[IAEP] TCM reporting

[Chris Leonard]

All,

I wanted to inform the SLOB that I will NOT be invoicing SugarLabs/SFC
for the month of May or June under the TCM agreement, although I will
be posting some detail of the work I have been performing in the
Translation Community Manager position.

It has always been my desire to be able to perform these duties
without compensation, and so I hope the SLOB accepts this as an
earnest attempt to preserve the capital of the TripAdvisor grant to
the greatest extent possible,  As defined in the TCM agreement, any
submitted invoice in future will be accompanied by a monthly report
posted in a public location.

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

[Dave Crossland]

On 1 July 2016 at 07:06, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
> We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes by
> email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).

I've heard that before, and this seems proven sure to fail. But I
don't think I can make the case for improving the boards procedure any
more strongly.

Why each and every board member does not wish to engage on improving
the board's processes is a mystery to me.

Well, thanks again for posting the previous email votes, I'll update
the Decisions page to link to them :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

[Tony Anderson]

Dave

We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes 
by email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).


Tony

On 07/01/2016 12:57 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 1 July 2016 at 05:45, Tony Anderson  wrote:

You need to distinguish between encouraging members to propose actions to be
taken by the Board and a motion made at a Board meeting by a member of the
Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members.

I got it :) Since motions made at a Board meeting by a member of the
Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members, are voted on
in private, would be willing to post a motion to improve the operation
of the project that requires votes to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB
lists in order to be counted as valid?
.



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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

[Dave Crossland]

On 1 July 2016 at 05:45, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
> You need to distinguish between encouraging members to propose actions to be
> taken by the Board and a motion made at a Board meeting by a member of the
> Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members.

I got it :) Since motions made at a Board meeting by a member of the
Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members, are voted on
in private, would be willing to post a motion to improve the operation
of the project that requires votes to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB
lists in order to be counted as valid?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Yoruba I18n

[David Ally]

Thank you to members of the oversight board! translating Sugar into Yoruba for 
those of us working in technology in Education in Nigeria should be a 
delightful thing and help us to push for many intervention agencies in Nigeria 
to contribute to IAEP to translate to other indigenous languages. I also agreed 
that other non-Nigerian languages can also be considered, but you can start 
with Yoruba as already proposed.

I hope this proposal come out successful.

Regards!
David 

On Fri, 7/1/16, Tony Anderson  wrote:

 Subject: [IAEP] Yoruba I18n
 To: "IAEP SugarLabs" 
 Date: Friday, July 1, 2016, 6:40 AM
 
 At today's Sugar Labs oversight board
 meeting [1], we discussed the 
 motion submitted by Chris Leonard to fund a program for
 translation of 
 Sugar into Yoruba, one of the three main languages spoken in
 Nigeria. I 
 second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.
 
 Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email
 solicitation 
 for a vote on the following motion.
 
 [text of the motion follows - this email from Walter was
 posted on IAEP]
 
 Approve.
 
 Tony Anderson
 
 Approve.
 
 Sameer
 
 
 
 Disagree.
 
 I don't see any evidence how Yoruba localization could
 increase the size 
 of the Sugar community. I think we mix here two things:
 - a localization project without any clear need on the
 field,
 - a legitimate wish to thank an active and loyal contributor
 (Samson)
 I can't be agree with the first one (including within the
 Trip Advisor 
 deal): it's time and money for nothing.
 I'm agree with the second one but may be we could imagine
 other ways to 
 do that, i.e. ask Samson to work on more useful tasks. For
 example help 
 on initiative like the Tony one to invent an auto
 localization process.
 
 Best regards from France.
 
            
    Lionel.
 
 
 +1 para Yoruba i18n motion
 
 Sugiero que para futuras propuestas se especifique el
 impacto que tendrá 
 en la comunidad. Es decir, cuáles y cuántos serán los
 beneficiarios de 
 la traducción, y si esto ampliará significativamente el
 alcance de Sugar.
 
 Saludos
 
 
 ___
 Lic. José Miguel García
 Montevideo - Uruguay
 
 +1 to the motion.
 
 Following Lionel's point, I suggest we create a list of
 languages and 
 decide which ones are a priority (based on the potential
 impact) and 
 look for people to do the job.
 
 Claudia
 
 
 
 
 
 Today at 7:38PM (ET) would be the deadline for the i18n
 motion.
 
 So the result on this motion is five in favor, one opposed
 and one 
 abstention.
 
 Tony
 ___
 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] Voting on GPLv3 motion

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Sam

This was in response to Dave Crossland's concern that the Board is 
acting in secret. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor and one 
abstention.


Tony

On 07/01/2016 11:55 AM, Sam Parkinson wrote:



On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Tony Anderson  
wrote:

Hi, Dave

This is what I have been able to find regarding the GPLv3 motion.

_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._


Didn't the motion pass?  I already merged the change of licence into 
the sugar repo, as per the approval.


Also, will we migrate sugar-toolkit-gtk3 to LGPLv3+?  What about 
sugar-datastore?



_
__
__Approve.__

__Tony Anderson__
__
_

_Approve._

__

_Sameer__
_

_Approve._

_
_
_BTW I'm worried about the fact that the Sugar-Web part (and so 
Sugarizer too) use the Apache 2.0 Licence. _

_I'm not a specialist but what imply a Licence migration ?_


These web people and their non copyleft liscenses.  I'm defiantly not 
a copyright holder for sugar-web, but aren't they worried about people 
stealing their work and rolling it into nonfree software?


Thanks,
Sam


_
_
_  Lionel._
_
_
_+1 para GPLv3 motion_
_
_
_
___
__Lic. José Miguel García__
__Montevideo - Uruguay_
_
__Approved!_
_
_
_Claudia_

Today at 8:04PM (ET) would be the deadline for the GPLv3 motion. (May 
13 @ 8:04PM ET)


So this vote was 6 in favor and one abstention.

Tony



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

Re: [IAEP] Voting on GPLv3 motion

[Sam Parkinson]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Tony Anderson  
wrote:

Hi, Dave

This is what I have been able to find regarding the GPLv3 motion.

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.


Didn't the motion pass?  I already merged the change of licence into 
the sugar repo, as per the approval.


Also, will we migrate sugar-toolkit-gtk3 to LGPLv3+?  What about 
sugar-datastore?





Approve.

Tony Anderson

Approve.

Sameer

Approve.


BTW I'm worried about the fact that the Sugar-Web part (and so 
Sugarizer too) use the Apache 2.0 Licence.

I'm not a specialist but what imply a Licence migration ?


These web people and their non copyleft liscenses.  I'm defiantly not a 
copyright holder for sugar-web, but aren't they worried about people 
stealing their work and rolling it into nonfree software?


Thanks,
Sam



  Lionel.

+1 para GPLv3 motion


___
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay

Approved!

Claudia

Today at 8:04PM (ET) would be the deadline for the GPLv3 motion. (May 
13 @ 8:04PM ET)


So this vote was 6 in favor and one abstention.

Tony

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

You need to distinguish between encouraging members to propose actions 
to be taken by the Board and a motion made at a Board meeting by a 
member of the Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members.


Tony



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

[IAEP] Renewal of domain name

[Tony Anderson]

According to Walter (email of May 10 posted to SLOBs, IAEP, and 
Sugar-devel).



   Motion to pay for laboratoriosazucar.org
    domain


Did not think we needed a motion since it was already a done deal. We 
should talk with Bernie about this over the weekend: how to ensure the 
infrastructure team stays ahead of these issues.



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