[IAEP] 2016/2017 Financials; Protecting XO Trademark in Perpetuity; Reseeding

[Adam Holt]

[1] We have $75,367.72 in the bank but FYI Sugar Labs' spending in 2017 has
been higher than any other year on record in Sugar Labs' 9-year history
(estimated $14105.73 so far, with almost one quarter of the year
remaining).  This despite dramatically fewer trips than the year before,
according to our summarized financial ledger just posted.  Depending how
you estimate it, Sugar Labs has posted a $5653.67 or $7805.73 loss[*] for
the year to date:

   2017
   https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#2017-01-01_to_2017-10-06

Last year income was somewhat ahead of expenses by either $117.62 or
$1462.25[*] in the final analysis:

   2016
   https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#2016-01-01_to_2016-12-31

[*] Depending on calendar year etc: some transactions happen many months
after they first post.  Also critical amendments/clarifications might be
necessary above, as new information comes to light.  Clarif on April 2011:
that $145,000.00 pass-through expense for Durham Cycling (sponsorship) was
a clerical anomaly more than an actual expense:
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#April_2011


[2] Currently the legal owner of the XO Trademark is (presumably) OLPC
INC.  If Sugar Labs seeks to protect itself and its learning constituents
from possibly less scrupulous future owners of the XO mark in the coming
decades (who might conceivably resist or charge for community licensing of
the XO artwork/symbol, if the trademark should ever change hands, a change
of ownership having happened twice[*] on our watch already during Sugar
Labs' 9 year history) board members interested in safeguarding future
decades' opportunities can review the following documents for completeness
and clarification:

$ ls Sugar/Agreements/Relicensing_sugar-artwork_files
Benjamin-Berg-consent.eml   Manuel-Quinones-consent.eml
Christian-Marc-Schmidt-consent.eml  Marco-Presenti-Gritti-consent.eml
C-Scott-Ananian-consent.eml Martin-Abente-consent.eml
Dan-Williams-consent.emlRecord-of-Contributor-approvals.ods
Eben-Eliason-consent.emlSimon-Schampijer-consent.eml
Gary-Martin-consent.eml Tomeu-Vizoso-consent.eml
Gonzalo-Odiard-consent.eml  Walter-Bender-consent.eml

The above documents are available to all board members who request access
via svn (subversion) from the SFConservancy.  There is absolutely no rush
here as the board clarified its broad opinion (
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2017-09-15).
However during the next meeting on November 3rd after the board election,
it might be prudent & precautionary to wrap up this matter by briefly
outlining a more forward-looking-statement (September's public discussions
were a very useful start) as to how we might work with and assist OLPC (or
any subsequent holder of the XO and similar trademarks) in protecting
Sugar's heritage across different global communities in 25 years from now
as much as 10 years from now...*and possibly much longer.*

Legal advice from different lawyers can be very helpful (I happen to know a
lot, and yes they like to be paid for their work just like underappreciated
accountants: as such an experienced lawyer recently admitted to me "let's
be very honest, we lawyers have different opinions, and the Internet is
often the best lawyer, even when your funds are not constrained...")  In
any case, Sugar Labs has not budgeted for detailed, paid legal research at
this time, for a subtle/complex case like this especially.   The XO
trademark and common law / community uses of it have an intricate history
of more than 10 years already, likely going substantially beyond
SFConservancy's responsibility to do basic legal/accounting work for Sugar
Labs.
*As such we should be thankful that SFC General Counsel Tony Sebro &
Bradley Kuhn have already helped us repeatedly on this matter: let me
reiterate a Profound Thanks go to the entire SFC for its diligence beyond
what most anybody is aware, on all matters!*

[*] or so one presumes, that the XO trademark has changed hands from the
OLPC Fdtn to the OLPC Assoc and then from the OLPC Assoc to OLPC Inc, as
OLPC itself has evolved into a different entity several times.  Similarly
Sugar Labs might want to do basic legal and market research on protecting
the Sugarizer name and concept, to protect Lionel and all, as the world
continually changes around us!


*[3]  W h y   W e ' r e   H e r e*

*Sugar Labs' 1st official transactions both took place on December 17th
2008 in an earlier era when Trump was just a playing card, Obama was not a
president, and Tweeting truly was for the birds...*

*Donations on that 1st day came from Bernie Innocenti ($10) and Caroline
Meeks ($50) towards building a completely new kind of more purposeful Lego,
opening minds for a completely new century if not civilization.  Shall we
honor that dream?  Honor their funds??  Or keep repeating ourselves???*

Here are some of the people who donated during those very 1st days in that
more innocent era 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Arbitration request: Caryl Bigenho a first warning for moderation [WAS: Re: Improving our Code of Conduct (was: Re: Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

Dear Ombudsman,

On yesterday's meeting
 I
was publicly remarked by Walter Bender as having made a "charge of
harassment" twice:

19:02 walterbender Before we get to the agenda, I just want to
report publicly that I am in touch with our ombudsman and he is
investigating the charge of harassment.

19:10 walterbender kaametza: we are in the process of arbitrating a
charge of harassment issued after your motion, but based upon procedures
outlined years ago.




*Clearly I haven't present any charge of harassment. I only requested an
arbitration process because I felt I was disrespected. *
This evidences the lack of objectivity Walter has toward me.



*Please, I do request Walter Bender to recuse himself from this arbitration
process. *
Regards,

Laura Victoria


2017-10-06 3:02 GMT-05:00 Laura Vargas :

>
> Seven years ago back in 2010, the systems labs team in the city of Puno
> (by the Titicaca Lake) had implemented a customized Debian distribution
> that allow them to have "Two Children Per Computer" by simply adding one
> additional Screen and one additional Keyboard.
>
> *Yes, it is true: I do not agree with the premise of "Una Computadora Por
> Niño" because I have seen technology to do better than that. *
>
> This way of thinking has brought me many challenges and opposition, like
> Caryl's.
>
> With Caryl's communication of October 4, 2017
> , I
> feel I have been disrespected and also has Sebastian.
>
> Although this is not the first time/event where I have received on behalf
> of Caryl Beringho words that cause me discomfort, it is with her October
> 4, 2017 communication, that Caryl goes beyond the line of what is
> "acceptable in our culture" by referring to the behavior that Sebastian and
> / or I must/should have with respect to our mothers.
>
> In Latin culture, we value deeply the roll of the mother. Not only our
> biological mothers but also our great mother earth. To use or call the name
> of someone's mother to mock or silent a person is extremely rude and
> disrespectful.
>
> Please see the reference: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tu_madre
>
> What I interpret in the best of cases is that Caryl's intention was to
> mock and/or ridicule our initiative to upgrade the Code of Conduct.
>
> As this is a community that depends on the existence, participation and
> well-being of the children we serve:
>
> I do not approve Caryl's lack of respect to me and Sebastian on her
> October 4, 2017 communication, nor her reluctance to accept this community
> has active children participating.
>
> I hope for the Board to call for a neutral RESPONSE TEAM to address my
> request, specifically I ask *all board/community members conflicted with
> my statement about the "Una Computadora Por Niño" premise to recuse
> themselves from this RESPONSE TEAM and/or this arbitration process.*
>
> Back to work now.
>
> As David Ally recently shared, children of the world need us!
>
>
> Laura Victoria
>
>
> 2017-10-05 6:22 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Laura Vargas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear SLOBs and community members;
>>>
>>> cc Ombusman
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to clearly state every member when interacting within the Sugar
>>> Labs project channels is expected to serve as an example for children.
>>>
>>> This is logical as within Sugar Labs, children make software,
>>> documentation, art, testing, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *I am sad because today, again, me and my family have been mistreated on
>>> a Sugar Labs mailing list by a Sugar Labs member.*
>>> I am sad because our Code of Conduct is not sufficient to deal with
>>> these situations and other than Walter no other SLOB notice me needing the
>>> addition of the anti-harassment Policy earlier.
>>>
>>> It is necessary we make a *list of acceptable and unacceptably
>>> behaviors within Sugar Labs communication channels *so we can add that
>>> to the Sugar Labs Code of Conduct.
>>>
>>> In this case Caryl might be unaware: in our culture, it is completely
>>> unacceptable to mention someone's mother.
>>>
>>> Sebastian's mother is my mother in law, a real person.
>>>
>>>
>>> So my petition is: to send Caryl a first warning for moderation and a
>>> suggestion to apologize to Sebastian.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Laura V
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-10-04 19:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>>>
 Sebastian,


 In my culture and, possibly in James's culture, accusations such as
 this one you are making against James, and the one Laura made against me a
 few weeks ago, are considered "harassment"... actually, extreme harassment.

>>>
>>> Caryl,
>>>
>>> We are far from understanding what your culture is.
>>>
>>>
 You are denying us the