Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Gonzalo Odiard]

According to the result of this motion, sugar-artwork repository should be
updated.

Gonzalo

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Samuel Greenfeld 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a
>> lawyer's opinion.  Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider
>> acceptable.
>>
>
> In fact, getting a lawyer's opinion is exactly what we are doing.
>
>>
>> Sugar has been using the XO logo for approximately 11 years now.  My
>> non-lawyer opinion is that if someone was to complain, they would be barred
>> by estoppel for having known about it, but failing to make a claim in a
>> timely manner.
>>
>> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be
>> distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and Ubuntu
>> cannot be distributed because it contains the name and logos owned by
>> Canonical?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Silva <
>> sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote:
>>>
>>> (A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently
>>> licensed under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to
>>> use all of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use
>>> of any trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board
>>> was in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when
>>> communicating with our legal counsel.
>>>
>>> SLOBs, please clarify:
>>>
>>> "(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our
>>> artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)"
>>>
>>> Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it
>>> distributes Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own
>>> downstream projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these distributions
>>> are often bundled with hardware vendors products or local service
>>> provider's services: *These last groups are the most threatened by a
>>> potential Trademark dispute.*
>>>
>>> Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board
>>> does not care about these actor's freedoms?
>>>
>>> Please also clarify:
>>>
>>> "As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of
>>> Sugar, we have no opinion. "
>>>
>>> This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL
>>> provide for licensees to be able to use the source for *any purpose.* A
>>> Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the
>>> legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface.
>>>
>>> Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all,
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>> ___
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
[image: photo]
*Gonzalo Odiard*
Lider de proyecto
tel.:  2081-6424 y 2082-0312 | www.trinom.ioAv
Calchaqui 4936· 2do Piso. Quilmes


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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] motion to approve travel advance

[Sameer Verma]

+1

Sameer

On Sep 20, 2017 8:29 AM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:

> +1
>
> I just want to make sure Samson is not going to be under unnecessary
> stress or risks just because of "saving money" in his itinerary.
>
>
> Regards and blessings
>
> Laura V
>
> 2017-09-20 10:15 GMT-05:00 Adam Holt :
>
>> Attention SFConservancy, Bradley Kuhn & Martin Michlmayr,
>>
>> +1 (my vote) means this will be approved with 4 (or more) of 7 votes
>> Sugar Labs Oversight Board -- please proceed to assist Samson's travel
>> planning as described below, Thanks!
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Ignacio Rodríguez <
>> igna...@sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Same here.
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Please enjoy and make us proud :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ‌
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sameer Verma  wrote:
>>>
 I'll second the motion.

 Sameer

 On Sep 19, 2017 7:01 PM, "Walter Bender" 
 wrote:

> Alas, we have made no headway on my email regarding our travel advance
> policy [1], but we have an important decision to make as soon as possible
> [2].
>
> As you know, we are hoping to send three representatives from Sugar
> Labs to the Google Summer of Code summit. Google has in fact allocated
> $3300 towards travel for this purpose (See [3] below). The plan of record
> was to send Cristina Del Puerto, who will be traveling from San Francisco,
> essentially at no cost, Samson Goddy, who will be traveling from Nigeria,
> and Michaël Ohayon, who will be traveling from France.
>
> Samson has requested that the SFC prepurchase a ticket for him, as
> detailed in [2]. He has also accrued several hundred US dollars in 
> expenses
> in obtaining his visa, which was money lent to him by community members
> when the SLOB denied his request for a travel advance. He is also asking
> for a cash advance of US $550 to cover local transportation needs in
> Nigeria and the States [4]. It is likely that the total cost of his and
> Michaël's travel will exceed the Google budget by some hundreds of
> dollars. That said, I think it is a worthwhile investment in two dedicated
> community members. So...
>
> Motion: Approve a travel advance for US $2550 (US $2000 SFC
> prepurchase of an airline ticket and $550 towards local transport) for
> Samson Goddy's travel to the Google Summer of Code mentor's summit.
>
> Your timely response to this motion much appreciated.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2017-September/020168.html
>
> [2] SLOBs,
>
> As you probably know, Google provides a donation of $2,700 which they
> suggest
> projects use for travel for mentors and students, ideally for the
> Mentor
> Summit.
>
> Samson has asked us to book his flight.  It seems it will probably cost
> around $1,800, but I'm sorting out details with Samson now based on
> his email
> in a private thread.
>
> I ask that Adam Holt, as Representative to Conservancy from SLOBs,
> please
> communicate immediate approval for up to $2,000 for booking Samson's
> flight
> (prices may change by the time you send that approve, so extra budget
> room
> is a good idea).
>
> Note that the budget constraint by Conservancy's travel policy in this
> case
> is US$2,748.54 for this particular travel, but the Google funding
> means we
> do need to get approval from you, since likely the combined travel for
> GSoC
> -- which includes Samson Goddy, Michaël Ohayon, and Cristina Del
> Puerto --
> will likely, in combination, go above the $2,700 donation for this
> purpose
> from Google.  Others have not sent their travel details so we don't
> know
> their travel costs -- if you want to set capped budgets for them as
> well,
> please do that immediately too.
>
> I recommend approval for all this travel -- provided that it follows
> Conservancy's main travel policy -- given the large amount of funds
> Sugar
> Labs has at its disposal already, but it's of course your decision.
>
> Martin Michlmayr
>
> [3] Hi GSoC Org Admins --
> As a thank you for your participation in GCI this year we want to give
> you 3 slots for mentors to send to the GSoC Mentor Summit (instead of the
> normal 2).
>
> We will add an additional $1100 to your GSoC mentor travel stipend
> payment (for a total of $3300 for the mentor travel stipends). Feel free 
> to
> have the third person sign up for the Mentor Summit registration before
> September 5th, the sooner the better so we can get more folks off of the
> wait list early.
>
> We will of course pay for the 3rd person's room for Friday and
> Saturday nights as well so be sure 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] motion to approve travel advance

[Laura Vargas]

+1

I just want to make sure Samson is not going to be under unnecessary stress
or risks just because of "saving money" in his itinerary.


Regards and blessings

Laura V

2017-09-20 10:15 GMT-05:00 Adam Holt :

> Attention SFConservancy, Bradley Kuhn & Martin Michlmayr,
>
> +1 (my vote) means this will be approved with 4 (or more) of 7 votes Sugar
> Labs Oversight Board -- please proceed to assist Samson's travel planning
> as described below, Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Ignacio Rodríguez  > wrote:
>
>> Same here.
>> +1
>>
>> Please enjoy and make us proud :)
>>
>>
>>
>> ‌
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sameer Verma  wrote:
>>
>>> I'll second the motion.
>>>
>>> Sameer
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2017 7:01 PM, "Walter Bender" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Alas, we have made no headway on my email regarding our travel advance
 policy [1], but we have an important decision to make as soon as possible
 [2].

 As you know, we are hoping to send three representatives from Sugar
 Labs to the Google Summer of Code summit. Google has in fact allocated
 $3300 towards travel for this purpose (See [3] below). The plan of record
 was to send Cristina Del Puerto, who will be traveling from San Francisco,
 essentially at no cost, Samson Goddy, who will be traveling from Nigeria,
 and Michaël Ohayon, who will be traveling from France.

 Samson has requested that the SFC prepurchase a ticket for him, as
 detailed in [2]. He has also accrued several hundred US dollars in expenses
 in obtaining his visa, which was money lent to him by community members
 when the SLOB denied his request for a travel advance. He is also asking
 for a cash advance of US $550 to cover local transportation needs in
 Nigeria and the States [4]. It is likely that the total cost of his and
 Michaël's travel will exceed the Google budget by some hundreds of
 dollars. That said, I think it is a worthwhile investment in two dedicated
 community members. So...

 Motion: Approve a travel advance for US $2550 (US $2000 SFC prepurchase
 of an airline ticket and $550 towards local transport) for Samson Goddy's
 travel to the Google Summer of Code mentor's summit.

 Your timely response to this motion much appreciated.

 regards.

 -walter


 [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2017-September/020168.html

 [2] SLOBs,

 As you probably know, Google provides a donation of $2,700 which they
 suggest
 projects use for travel for mentors and students, ideally for the Mentor
 Summit.

 Samson has asked us to book his flight.  It seems it will probably cost
 around $1,800, but I'm sorting out details with Samson now based on his
 email
 in a private thread.

 I ask that Adam Holt, as Representative to Conservancy from SLOBs,
 please
 communicate immediate approval for up to $2,000 for booking Samson's
 flight
 (prices may change by the time you send that approve, so extra budget
 room
 is a good idea).

 Note that the budget constraint by Conservancy's travel policy in this
 case
 is US$2,748.54 for this particular travel, but the Google funding means
 we
 do need to get approval from you, since likely the combined travel for
 GSoC
 -- which includes Samson Goddy, Michaël Ohayon, and Cristina Del Puerto
 --
 will likely, in combination, go above the $2,700 donation for this
 purpose
 from Google.  Others have not sent their travel details so we don't know
 their travel costs -- if you want to set capped budgets for them as
 well,
 please do that immediately too.

 I recommend approval for all this travel -- provided that it follows
 Conservancy's main travel policy -- given the large amount of funds
 Sugar
 Labs has at its disposal already, but it's of course your decision.

 Martin Michlmayr

 [3] Hi GSoC Org Admins --
 As a thank you for your participation in GCI this year we want to give
 you 3 slots for mentors to send to the GSoC Mentor Summit (instead of the
 normal 2).

 We will add an additional $1100 to your GSoC mentor travel stipend
 payment (for a total of $3300 for the mentor travel stipends). Feel free to
 have the third person sign up for the Mentor Summit registration before
 September 5th, the sooner the better so we can get more folks off of the
 wait list early.

 We will of course pay for the 3rd person's room for Friday and Saturday
 nights as well so be sure they sign up for their hotel room at either the
 Sunnyvale Sheraton Hotel  or Aloft Santa Clara Hotel before September 5th.

 It would be great if you sent a mentor that was a mentor for both
 programs as your third person. The 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Walter Bender]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Samuel Greenfeld 
wrote:

> I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a
> lawyer's opinion.  Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider
> acceptable.
>

In fact, getting a lawyer's opinion is exactly what we are doing.

>
> Sugar has been using the XO logo for approximately 11 years now.  My
> non-lawyer opinion is that if someone was to complain, they would be barred
> by estoppel for having known about it, but failing to make a claim in a
> timely manner.
>
> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be
> distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and Ubuntu
> cannot be distributed because it contains the name and logos owned by
> Canonical?
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Silva <
> sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> (A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently licensed
>> under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to use all
>> of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use of any
>> trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion.
>>
>>
>> There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board
>> was in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when
>> communicating with our legal counsel.
>>
>> SLOBs, please clarify:
>>
>> "(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our
>> artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)"
>>
>> Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it distributes
>> Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own downstream
>> projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these distributions are often
>> bundled with hardware vendors products or local service provider's
>> services: *These last groups are the most threatened by a potential
>> Trademark dispute.*
>>
>> Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board
>> does not care about these actor's freedoms?
>>
>> Please also clarify:
>>
>> "As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of
>> Sugar, we have no opinion. "
>>
>> This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL
>> provide for licensees to be able to use the source for *any purpose.* A
>> Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the
>> legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface.
>>
>> Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all,
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
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] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Lionel Laské]

+1 for the motion.

@Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.

  Lionel.


2017-09-15 20:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :

> I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would
> like clarification:
>
> In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written
> documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands) that the XO
> trademark artwork is (as stated in the motion) "currently licensed under
> the GPL" ?
>
> Do you know who specifically is/was the source of this GPL declaration?
>
> Separately (if possible!) has this been reviewed as valid by legal counsel?
>
> *Thanks for clarifying what you can!*
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Samson Goddy 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  wrote:
>>
>> The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be
>> going around  in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative
>> that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that
>> Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options.
>>
>> To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can
>> change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation
>> with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that
>> decision on our own terms or be forced into a change.
>>
>> Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the
>> xo-computer icon as follows:
>> (Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and
>> does the SLOBs want to keep it there?
>> (A1) The xo-computer icon has been part of Sugar since we first designed
>> and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it there
>> until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to change it.
>> (Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what
>> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
>> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify
>> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the
>> program?
>> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
>> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
>> Sugar?
>> (A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently licensed
>> under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to use all
>> of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use of any
>> trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion.
>>
>> I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes, the
>> results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the
>> motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion.
>>
>> I second the motion.
>>
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Walter Bender 
>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>> To: SLOBs 
>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>
>>
>> As probably most of you are aware, yesterday one of our community members
>> unilaterally changed the xo-computer icon in sugar-artwork. The ensuing
>> discussion about the change is in the github pull request, "Urgent fix
>> logos", [1]
>>
>> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork
>> [2] and there was concern that we were infringing and consequently
>> downstream users would also be infringing.
>>
>> As Sean Daly points out, this is not the first time that the topic has
>> come up [3, 4]. "In the past, OLPC was amenable to the use of the xo
>> logo in Sugar, but asked we not use it in marketing materials without a
>> formal co-branding licensing agreement."
>>
>> Personally, I think that OLPC was explicit in making the Sugar artwork
>> available under a GPL licence and that this is hence moot. But I am not
>> qualified to make that assessment. Consequently, I asked Adam Holt, our SFC
>> liaison, to raise the issue with the legal team. Tony asked us to consider
>> the following questions:
>>
>> 1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does
>> the SLOBs want to keep it there?
>> 2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork:  what
>> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
>> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify
>> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the
>> program?
>> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
>> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
>> Sugar?
>>
>> The answer to the first part of Tony's first question is that the XO logo
>> was part of Sugar from the very beginning -- before Sugar Labs was split
>> from OLPC. We've never changed it.
>>
>> 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sameer Verma]

Hi Caryl,

Free and open source software projects allow for forking by design as a way
out of major disagreements. However if this disagreement is due to an
intellectual property issue (as it appears to be in the current
discussion), it is best handled by our legal counsel. Most of us are not
qualified enough to offer that judgment. I'm certainly not.

Sameer

On Sep 15, 2017 10:46 AM, "Caryl Bigenho"  wrote:

> The XO icon in modified form is used on Sugarizer. It appears elsewhere on
> other current versions of Sugar. It is a well known icon and, as such,
> carries considerable intrinsic value.
>
>
> If some people want to completely divorce themselves from all the hard
> work of their predecessors and the good will they have built up, perhaps it
> would be better for them to leave Sugar Labs entirely and strike out on
> their own.
>
>
> Caryl
>
>
> --
> *From:* IAEP  on behalf of Sean DALY <
> sdaly...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 9:17 AM
> *To:* Sebastian Silva
> *Cc:* Sugar-dev Devel; Samson Goddy; OLPC para usuarios, docentes,
> voluntarios y administradores; Laura Vargas; Sugar Labs Marketing; Sugar
> Labs Oversights Board; iaep; Ignacio Rodríguez
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon
>
> So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give
> up its trademark?
>
> Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva <
> sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>> On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
>> > The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
>> > long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
>> > license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
>> > a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
>> > underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
>> > change.
>> You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
>> downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
>> competitors?
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

[Samson Goddy]

On Jun 1, 2017 1:28 PM, "Adam Holt"  wrote:

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Samson Goddy  wrote:

> This would set a terrible precedent for Sugar Labs to pay $800 for a visa
> alone.
>
> Flight and other things connected.
>
>
All for the sake of 1 visa alone, let's hope it happens (sorry you're
flying instead of taking the new train from Port Harcourt to Lagos isn't
ready yet...)

Strange that my parents spent an important part of their lives teaching  in
> Nigeria and I happen to know more about modern Lagos (where Samson would
> apply for his French govt visa) than a steady stream of hyperbolic claims
> have insinuated.
>
>
> I am a Nigerian, you are not.
>
>
Luckily they charge the same price regardless our ethnicity here at this
$~19/night room in good proximity to the French Embassy in Lagos: (Lekki,
by Lagos Island, I know it well)

   http://airbnb.com/rooms/13639701

Air/conditioning, Internet, Amenities etc...I don't spend this much myself
but there are in fact options in every price range.

Staying a  standard hotel, is and always be the best option for me. I am
not an adult yet technically, the street in Lagos is not meant for people
like me.

Meaning i can't use this service, only hotels. My parents wouldn't even let
me try it.

It may sound crazy but that how it is.


Things are crazy expensive in Nigeria.
>
>
Nigeria has a truly great sense of humor and Nigerians are more resourceful
than most imagine.

Yeah we all are, but the government isn't.


As such I will continue to vote My Conscience -- *AGAINST THIS MOTION with
> respect for all and malice toward none* -- up until the point where:
>
> 1) The total is reduced to $500 (receipts provided per SFConservancy
> policies).
>
> If $800 can't be given to me, i am okay with  $500-600. Just that it will
> make me use lot of my savings i have been keeping for my internet plan.
> Half is better than none.
>
>
Thanks much Samson for being understanding and honoring all who wish they
had this opportunity!


> 2) It is clarified in writing (within the motion or nearby) what happens
> if the money disappears, if the French Govt insists on rejecting Samson's
> visa application.  (In short: would Sugar Labs or Scratch pay this up-to-
> $500 ?)
>
>
The motion needs to quickly clarify the above.

Frankly, there is no need for this. I said Sugar Labs is not going to give
me any money or support me until i have my visa that hand. This motion is
purely for reimbursement.

You made it clear that SL might lose money. So this is how i tend to
prevent that. I am going to use my personal savings with so little support
with the scratch community. Then get reimbursed if i am successful.


Onwards & Upwards ~

___
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] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

[Adam Holt]

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Samson Goddy  wrote:

> This would set a terrible precedent for Sugar Labs to pay $800 for a visa
> alone.
>
> Flight and other things connected.
>
>
All for the sake of 1 visa alone, let's hope it happens (sorry you're
flying instead of taking the new train from Port Harcourt to Lagos isn't
ready yet...)

Strange that my parents spent an important part of their lives teaching  in
> Nigeria and I happen to know more about modern Lagos (where Samson would
> apply for his French govt visa) than a steady stream of hyperbolic claims
> have insinuated.
>
>
> I am a Nigerian, you are not.
>
>
Luckily they charge the same price regardless our ethnicity here at this
$~19/night room in good proximity to the French Embassy in Lagos: (Lekki,
by Lagos Island, I know it well)

   http://airbnb.com/rooms/13639701

Air/conditioning, Internet, Amenities etc...I don't spend this much myself
but there are in fact options in every price range.

Things are crazy expensive in Nigeria.
>
>
Nigeria has a truly great sense of humor and Nigerians are more resourceful
than most imagine.

As such I will continue to vote My Conscience -- *AGAINST THIS MOTION with
> respect for all and malice toward none* -- up until the point where:
>
> 1) The total is reduced to $500 (receipts provided per SFConservancy
> policies).
>
> If $800 can't be given to me, i am okay with  $500-600. Just that it will
> make me use lot of my savings i have been keeping for my internet plan.
> Half is better than none.
>
>
Thanks much Samson for being understanding and honoring all who wish they
had this opportunity!


> 2) It is clarified in writing (within the motion or nearby) what happens
> if the money disappears, if the French Govt insists on rejecting Samson's
> visa application.  (In short: would Sugar Labs or Scratch pay this up-to-
> $500 ?)
>
>
The motion needs to quickly clarify the above.

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

[Samson Goddy]

Hi adam,

I want to clarify some things with you.

On Jun 1, 2017 11:50 AM, "Adam Holt"  wrote:

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Walter Bender 
 wrote:

I'd like to queue up this motion before our monthly meeting on Friday:

Motion: Allocate $800 towards the expenses associated with Samson Goddy
presenting Sugar at the Scratch Conference in Bordeaux, France in July 2017
(See [1] for details).


This would set a terrible precedent for Sugar Labs to pay $800 for a visa
alone.

Flight and other things connected.


Far worse, when in fact it can be done for less.

Strange that my parents spent an important part of their lives teaching  in
Nigeria and I happen to know more about modern Lagos (where Samson would
apply for his French govt visa) than a steady stream of hyperbolic claims
have insinuated.


I am a Nigerian, you are not. If you look at caryl email you will see that
2017 is the worst year in the whole nigeria history in terms of economy.
Most things you see in the internet are purely last year. Things are crazy
expensive in Nigeria. I spent close to 80USD per month for internet only.

And we don't use dollar in Nigeria just naira. And naira is not valuable.


As such I will continue to vote My Conscience -- *AGAINST THIS MOTION with
respect for all and malice toward none* -- up until the point where:

1) The total is reduced to $500 (receipts provided per SFConservancy
policies).

If $800 can't be given to me, i am okay with  $500-600. Just that it will
make me use lot of my savings i have been keeping for my internet plan.
Half is better than none.


2) It is clarified in writing (within the motion or nearby) what happens if
the money disappears, if the French Govt insists on rejecting Samson's visa
application.  (In short: would Sugar Labs or Scratch pay this up-to-$500 ?)

I am the one taking the risk not Sugar Labs.

You mention last time that if i can get money elsewhere and be successful
with the visa.. Sugar Labs will grant me repay me.

The money is to paid to me not scratch..

Right now Scratch already sent me some money for Ibiam's passport. Which he
will be having soon, they are alo looking for a way to get Ibiam to
bordeaux since the community chose not to help.


Important: There's absolutely no need to wait for a monthly meeting here,
so that Samson (or other urgent matters such as this) are not left waiting.


I think friday will be a good day to vote. There is no rush. I am to go to
lagos bu 11th of june.



[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/152VDfUcdcGOHOFBLT3lG15sU
FpzBeuBCGiNAGCSOLj4/edit?usp=sharing

regards.

-walter

-- 
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 !


___
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] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

[Adam Holt]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> I'd like to queue up this motion before our monthly meeting on Friday:
>
> Motion: Allocate $800 towards the expenses associated with Samson Goddy
> presenting Sugar at the Scratch Conference in Bordeaux, France in July 2017
> (See [1] for details).
>

This would set a terrible precedent for Sugar Labs to pay $800 for a visa
alone.

Far worse, when in fact it can be done for less.

Strange that my parents spent an important part of their lives teaching in
Nigeria and I happen to know more about modern Lagos (where Samson would
apply for his French govt visa) than a steady stream of hyperbolic claims
have insinuated.

As such I will continue to vote My Conscience -- *AGAINST THIS MOTION with
respect for all and malice toward none* -- up until the point where:

1) The total is reduced to $500 (receipts provided per SFConservancy
policies).

2) It is clarified in writing (within the motion or nearby) what happens if
the money disappears, if the French Govt insists on rejecting Samson's visa
application.  (In short: would Sugar Labs or Scratch pay this up-to-$500 ?)

Important: There's absolutely no need to wait for a monthly meeting here,
so that Samson (or other urgent matters such as this) are not left waiting.


[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/152VDfUcdcGOHOFBLT3lG15sUFpzBe
> uBCGiNAGCSOLj4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> --
> 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 !
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep