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

[Dave Crossland]

On 19 May 2016 at 11:21, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> I am not sure of my arithmetic. Six mentors at $500 is $3000, so 10% is
> $300 and 5% is $150. Leaving $2550 or $255 per mentor.
>

Works for me. I updated the motion! :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Tony Anderson]

I am not sure of my arithmetic. Six mentors at $500 is $3000, so 10% is 
$300 and 5% is $150. Leaving $2550 or $255 per mentor.


Tony

On 05/18/2016 02:37 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:


Hi

On 18 May 2016 at 04:15, Tony Anderson > wrote:


In the case of the GSOC stipend, I assume the total amount is
transferred to SugarLabs. That amount is based on the number of
slots (6) and not on
the number of mentors.


Yes, the total is based on that, but the fraction due to each mentor 
is not, because we have more mentors than slots.


The amount is fixed per slot ($500). So SFC would take $250


Why would SFC take 50%?

and SugarLabs would take $125.


Why would SL take 25%

This would result in a balance of $2625 or $262.50 per each of the
ten mentors. Each mentor could individually decide to request the
$262.50 or leave it in the General Fund.


:)

In the case of the membership donation. It appears to be a
donation since there is no penalty. I think it should be a
donation request with the amounts

as an 'expectation'.


I don't understand. It is called a donation, and thus it is _de facto_ 
a donation request.


If you would like to amend the text I drafted, please use the 
suggestions feature of Google Docs.


If you would like to see donations solicited in totally different way, 
please draft a counter motion and post it.


I don't understand the 'rewards' for larger donations. What is a
release codename?


Its a long tradition in software projects to have names for releases; 
Microsoft's codenames in the 90s were cities - Windows 95 was Cairo - 
and most major free software projects use them:


https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/History_of_Fedora_release_names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_release_history

More importantly, I think the first step is to provide a simple
way for members or non-members to donate to support Sugar Labs. Is
this paypal, credit card or   Is this something that SFC must
provide or can SugarLabs do this on its own?


The donate link on the wiki was not working, I didn't retrieve a 
working link yet, but when I do I will get it back on the website :) 
I'd be very grateful if you could help with this :D


--
Cheers
Dave


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


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

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

[Dave Crossland]

On 12 May 2016 at 10:52, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> On 12 May 2016 at 09:42, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> As Adam has pointed out, this motion has failed to pass. It seems that
>> there is some support of the idea of offering at least a portion of the
>> GSoC stipend to mentors who need/request the funds, but the form of the
>> current motion, putting the authority into the hands of the mentors
>> themselves does not have adequate support. Perhaps someone can craft a
>> motion that would be better received by the oversight board.
>>
>
> I submit the following motion draft for comments, based on Sebastian's
> text, which I believe expresses Tony's sentiment, and pays a courtesy to
> Lionel's sentiment. With the existing votes for the previous motion plus
> Tony's swing vote, the motion can pass.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj
> -Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit
>

I invite anyone else to comment on my 2 planned motions, and I'll submit
them at the end of the week :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

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

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

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

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


>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 2016 3:33 PM, "Lionel Laské"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Disagree.
>> >
>> > Thought I understand that 500$ is lot of money for some people, I think
>> that GSoC is also a way for SugarLabs to raise money. Because we don't ask
>> for an annual fee to member (like other association, for example OLPC
>> France), it's even the only way to hope for a regular contribution.
>>
>> Indeed, Google chose to pay "mentoring organizations" rather mentors, for
>> exactly the reasons Lionel lays out.  If Google wanted to pay GSoC stipends
>> instead, it would have done exactly that, using the word stipend, and
>> incurring the very significant accounting/managerial/compliance costs of
>> managing such stipends.  Google (GSoC) did Not make that choice, though
>> conceivably in future Google should consider international transactions
>> direct to Mentors?
>>
> I think it is a stretch to assert that the reason Google chose to pay the
> "mentoring organizations" is because they didn't intend to pay stipends. I
> won't presume to try to second guess Google's intentions, but in fact they
> do refer to the organization payments as "mentor stipends". And I can
> imagine that bypassing the paperwork associated with making transactions
> with individual mentors would be a strong motivation to pass the fund
> through the parent organization.
>

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

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


> Until that distant day, mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently
>> recognized, just like the mentoring organization is insufficiently
>> recognized, in the constructionist ethos especially we are all learning ;-)
>>
>> In conclusion, I abstain because my own opinion is that a $500 pass-thru
>> to the mentor shows a lack of respect for the organization/ops backstopping
>> of our overall *joint* efforts ~ in the same way that $500 to the
>> organization shows a similar lack of respect for certain particularly
>> dedicated mentors.
>>
> I don't see how the proposal to pay mentors stipends in any way shows lack
> of respect to either Sugar Labs, its volunteer community, or the mentors
> themselves.
>

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


> Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
>> organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
>> low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
>> Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.
>>
> In fact, whereas most of the mentors were not intending to take the money,
> the outcome would have been even more generous to Sugar Labs than the plan
> you are proposing.
>

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

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

> Lionel's warning should not be ignored, if anyone cares about
>> inter-generational leadership: in the apprentice system the parents of
>> mentees who can afford it would very happily Pay Sugar Labs (Mentoring
>> Organization), much like users of Wikipedia happily Pay annual 

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

[Walter Bender]

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


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

> On May 7, 2016 3:33 PM, "Lionel Laské"  wrote:
> >
> > Disagree.
> >
> > Thought I understand that 500$ is lot of money for some people, I think
> that GSoC is also a way for SugarLabs to raise money. Because we don't ask
> for an annual fee to member (like other association, for example OLPC
> France), it's even the only way to hope for a regular contribution.
>
> Indeed, Google chose to pay "mentoring organizations" rather mentors, for
> exactly the reasons Lionel lays out.  If Google wanted to pay GSoC stipends
> instead, it would have done exactly that, using the word stipend, and
> incurring the very significant accounting/managerial/compliance costs of
> managing such stipends.  Google (GSoC) did Not make that choice, though
> conceivably in future Google should consider international transactions
> direct to Mentors?
>
I think it is a stretch to assert that the reason Google chose to pay the
"mentoring organizations" is because they didn't intend to pay stipends. I
won't presume to try to second guess Google's intentions, but in fact they
do refer to the organization payments as "mentor stipends". And I can
imagine that bypassing the paperwork associated with making transactions
with individual mentors would be a strong motivation to pass the fund
through the parent organization.

> Until that distant day, mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently
> recognized, just like the mentoring organization is insufficiently
> recognized, in the constructionist ethos especially we are all learning ;-)
>
> In conclusion, I abstain because my own opinion is that a $500 pass-thru
> to the mentor shows a lack of respect for the organization/ops backstopping
> of our overall *joint* efforts ~ in the same way that $500 to the
> organization shows a similar lack of respect for certain particularly
> dedicated mentors.
>
I don't see how the proposal to pay mentors stipends in any way shows lack
of respect to either Sugar Labs, its volunteer community, or the mentors
themselves.

> Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
> organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
> low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
> Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.
>

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

> Lionel's warning should not be ignored, if anyone cares about
> inter-generational leadership: in the apprentice system the parents of
> mentees who can afford it would very happily Pay Sugar Labs (Mentoring
> Organization), much like users of Wikipedia happily Pay annual donations,
> much like members of OLPC France happily Pay for something they believe
> in...  (What other learning economies surround us, that we may not even
> realize??)
>

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

> > Best regards from France.
> >
> > Lionel.
> >
> >
> > 2016-05-07 1:49 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :
> >>
> >> At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the
> motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to allow the mentors participating in
> Google Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as
> they see fit. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.
> >>
> >> Background: Every year, Google provides mentoring organizations with a
> stipend for the mentors. In our first year of participation in the program,
> Sugar Labs mentors agreed to have the stipend directed to the Sugar Labs
> general funds. We have followed the same procedure in subsequent years.
> This year, however, several mentors asked if they could have access to the
> stipends (which are allocated per student internship). We discussed this at
> the meeting and agreed that it would be appropriate to offer these funds as
> compensation and thanks to the mentors for their time and expertise (there
> were no objections raised). We need to vote on this however, since the
> funds are given to the mentoring organization, not the 

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

[Adam Holt]

On May 11, 2016 2:55 PM, "Sebastian Silva" 
wrote:
>
> El 11/05/16 a las 13:40, Adam Holt escribió:
> > This was clarified when I joined SL Oversight Board at the end of
> > 2009, and again exhaustively re-clarified at the beginning of this year.
> Can you point me to where this was "exhaustively re-clarified" ?
> Thanks!

Kindly read the minutes of SL Oversight Meetings from earlier this year,
where I laid this out in explicit detail, precisely so we don't leave lead
lives of eternal parliamentary snafus, with several new board members who
did plainly did not understand voting, even after explanation.

Feel free to read the several failed motions (late autumn 2009, and late
autumn 2015 are 2 examples) which received a majority of "those who
bothered to vote" but failed to muster the required 4 votes (majority of
seats) to actually pass.

It's high time we start encoding these facts (de facto nonprofit bylaws)
into Governance pages so we/all give curious newcomers functional
transparency, earning their trust.

Specifically I'm hoping SL Board secretary (Dave Crossland has agreed to
serve) can invest some moments this wkd, publishing agreed voting
procedures / who exactly are our nonprofit's members today / how many /
what is the true criterion for joining / etc, so we can move beyond the
Tyranny of Structurelessness at long last!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Sebastian Silva]

El 11/05/16 a las 13:40, Adam Holt escribió:
> This was clarified when I joined SL Oversight Board at the end of
> 2009, and again exhaustively re-clarified at the beginning of this year.
Can you point me to where this was "exhaustively re-clarified" ?
Thanks!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Adam Holt]

4 affirmative votes (majoruty of 7 seats) are required for all motions to
pass.

This was clarified when I joined SL Oversight Board at the end of 2009, and
again exhaustively re-clarified at the beginning of this year.
On May 11, 2016 2:24 PM, "Sebastian Silva" 
wrote:

>
>
> El 11/05/16 a las 13:01, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstains,
> and the funds will accrue into the general fund.
>
>
> Here I found a precedent:
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Log-2009-09-25
>
>  okay, that's 3 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. we could still get 3 no, I
> suppose.
>  cjb:the motion passes.
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Sebastian Silva]

El 11/05/16 a las 13:01, Dave Crossland escribió:
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4
> abstains, and the funds will accrue into the general fund. 

Here I found a precedent:
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Log-2009-09-25

 okay, that's 3 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. we could still get 3 no,
I suppose.
 cjb:the motion passes.

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

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

[Sebastian Silva]

El 11/05/16 a las 13:01, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4
> abstains, and the funds will accrue into the general fund. 
That is a curious conclusion. The Governance does not mention how SLOBs
votes are counted, but I would have assumed a simple majority was
needed, not absolute majority.

So which is it? Do we have a precedent?

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

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

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 13:53, Adam Holt  wrote:

> Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
> organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
> low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
> Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.
>
> So, the motion failed, with 3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstains,
and the funds will accrue into the general fund.

So in that case, I guess a motion to pay a $250 thank you fee to
specifically named mentors when the funds are available might pass with
votes for from Adam and the 3 votes for this motion.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Adam Holt]

On May 7, 2016 3:33 PM, "Lionel Laské"  wrote:
>
> Disagree.
>
> Thought I understand that 500$ is lot of money for some people, I think
that GSoC is also a way for SugarLabs to raise money. Because we don't ask
for an annual fee to member (like other association, for example OLPC
France), it's even the only way to hope for a regular contribution.

Indeed, Google chose to pay "mentoring organizations" rather mentors, for
exactly the reasons Lionel lays out.  If Google wanted to pay GSoC stipends
instead, it would have done exactly that, using the word stipend, and
incurring the very significant accounting/managerial/compliance costs of
managing such stipends.  Google (GSoC) did Not make that choice, though
conceivably in future Google should consider international transactions
direct to Mentors?

Until that distant day, mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently
recognized, just like the mentoring organization is insufficiently
recognized, in the constructionist ethos especially we are all learning ;-)

In conclusion, I abstain because my own opinion is that a $500 pass-thru to
the mentor shows a lack of respect for the organization/ops backstopping of
our overall *joint* efforts ~ in the same way that $500 to the organization
shows a similar lack of respect for certain particularly dedicated mentors.

Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.

Lionel's warning should not be ignored, if anyone cares about
inter-generational leadership: in the apprentice system the parents of
mentees who can afford it would very happily Pay Sugar Labs (Mentoring
Organization), much like users of Wikipedia happily Pay annual donations,
much like members of OLPC France happily Pay for something they believe
in...  (What other learning economies surround us, that we may not even
realize??)

> Best regards from France.
>
> Lionel.
>
>
> 2016-05-07 1:49 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :
>>
>> At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the
motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to allow the mentors participating in
Google Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as
they see fit. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.
>>
>> Background: Every year, Google provides mentoring organizations with a
stipend for the mentors. In our first year of participation in the program,
Sugar Labs mentors agreed to have the stipend directed to the Sugar Labs
general funds. We have followed the same procedure in subsequent years.
This year, however, several mentors asked if they could have access to the
stipends (which are allocated per student internship). We discussed this at
the meeting and agreed that it would be appropriate to offer these funds as
compensation and thanks to the mentors for their time and expertise (there
were no objections raised). We need to vote on this however, since the
funds are given to the mentoring organization, not the individual mentors.
>>
>> Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation
for a vote on the following motion. (Note that since I am a mentor, I think
I must recuse myself from the vote.)
>>
>> Motion: to allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> [1]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-05-06
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep