Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Caryl!

On 12 May 2016 at 11:08, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 10:51, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>
>> Dues are a bad idea!
>> Sorry folks
>>
>
> Please could you explain why you think this?
>

I'm keen to understand your concern :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Chris Leonard]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY  wrote:
>>
>> Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers".
>
>
> Well, there's now a paid Translatoins Manager


Yes there is and I am sympathetic to those who find their wish to
volunteer made difficult by personal finances.

cjl
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 12 May 2016 at 11:09, Sean DALY  wrote:

> Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers".
>

Well, there's now a paid Translatoins Manager
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Sean DALY]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Sam Parkinson 
wrote:

> Us volunteers write code, make releases, do user testing, etc.


Sam - I'm not aware that anyone here is other than "us volunteers".

Dues are how many if not most normally functioning nonprofits operate. I am
co-founder and treasurer of a small musical event nonprofit and dues are
the major source of annual income to cover expenses. I am also on the board
of a medium sized nonprofit (library support, >300 members) and the major
portion of operating revenue is from dues. I pay dues to a musical
instruction association, and vote for officers. Etc.

I believe collecting dues is a fine idea. Arrangements are always possible
for the levels - my musical nonprofit has regular dues at €20,
family/household at €30, student/unemployed at €10, sponsor at €100 (their
names are printed on the programs).

Of course, dues paying members expect and are entitled to annual financial
reporting.

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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 12 May 2016 at 10:51, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Dues are a bad idea!
> Sorry folks
>

Please could you explain why you think this?

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Caryl Bigenho]

Dues are a bad idea!
Sorry folks
Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11 May 2016 at 22:28, Sam Parkinson  wrote:
>> Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free 
>> Software orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.
> 
> 
> Its very common for clubs/nonprofits to do this. FSF, Conservancy, TUG, UKTUG 
> run membership programs, and I also pay member dues to several typography 
> non-profits (ATypI, SoTA, TDC) and in the past for a sailing club.
> ___
> 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 -- 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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 22:28, Sam Parkinson  wrote:

> Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free
> Software orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.
>

Its very common for clubs/nonprofits to do this. FSF, Conservancy, TUG,
UKTUG run membership programs, and I also pay member dues to several
typography non-profits (ATypI, SoTA, TDC) and in the past for a sailing
club.
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[samson goddy]

+ 1 to Sam P.

Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:28:23 +1000
From: sam.parkins...@gmail.com
To: la...@somosazucar.org
CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; d...@lab6.com
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open 
issues to discuss

I'm not a big fan of this idea.
The SLOBs already seem to have some capital.  But they seem to be scared to 
spend it.  How much arguing have we done over the translation co-ordinator 
position?  Something like a translation position would be great, but nobody has 
seemed to actually do anything to put in into action.
Meanwhile, Sugar continues to evolve.  Us volunteers write code, make releases, 
do user testing, etc.  This is not stuff that the SLOBs has helped with, not in 
a way that I am aware of at lest.
Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free Software 
orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.
So my opinion is that the SLOBS should do something before seeking to raise 
additional funding, especially in this odd way.
Thanks,Sam

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:



2016-05-12 2:08 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:

On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:
there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among 
activities/teams/projects etc.
I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly to further 
income, to grow the project. I agree that there is a need for income strategies 
as well. Still, the idea of annual budget is to plan the expenses so that the 
most areas of an organization can produce results in what they do.
It would be ideal to count with a somehow stable basic income, and therefore it 
would make sense to promote a motion for Lionel's idea of a yearly membership 
fee. Of course it would have to contemplate the exemptions of minors and 
members who actually don't have resources to pay.
Been more than 80 members, a yearly fee of US$100 with an estimated ~50% of 
exemptions would put in SL general fund ~US$4.000 per year, probably enough for 
basic operations. 
-- 
Laura V.

I SomosAZUCAR.Org



Identi.ca/Skype acaire

IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!




___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Sam Parkinson]

I'm not a big fan of this idea.

The SLOBs already seem to have some capital.  But they seem to be 
scared to spend it.  How much arguing have we done over the translation 
co-ordinator position?  Something like a translation position would be 
great, but nobody has seemed to actually do anything to put in into 
action.


Meanwhile, Sugar continues to evolve.  Us volunteers write code, make 
releases, do user testing, etc.  This is not stuff that the SLOBs has 
helped with, not in a way that I am aware of at lest.


Is a membership fee for volunteers even something that any other Free 
Software orgs do?  GNOME doesn't seem to.


So my opinion is that the SLOBS should do something before seeking to 
raise additional funding, especially in this odd way.


Thanks,
Sam

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Laura Vargas  
wrote:



2016-05-12 2:08 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :


On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:
there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among 
activities/teams/projects etc.


I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly 
to further income, to grow the project.


I agree that there is a need for income strategies as well. Still, 
the idea of annual budget is to plan the expenses so that the most 
areas of an organization can produce results in what they do.


It would be ideal to count with a somehow stable basic income, and 
therefore it would make sense to promote a motion for Lionel's idea 
of a yearly membership fee. Of course it would have to contemplate 
the exemptions of minors and members who actually don't have 
resources to pay.


Been more than 80 members, a yearly fee of US$100 with an estimated 
~50% of exemptions would put in SL general fund ~US$4.000 per year, 
probably enough for basic operations.



--
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!

___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 2:08 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
> On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among
>> activities/teams/projects etc.
>
>
> I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly to
> further income, to grow the project.
>

I agree that there is a need for income strategies as well. Still, the idea
of annual budget is to plan the expenses so that the most areas of an
organization can produce results in what they do.

It would be ideal to count with a somehow stable basic income, and
therefore it would make sense to promote a motion for Lionel's idea of a
yearly membership fee. Of course it would have to contemplate the
exemptions of minors and members who actually don't have resources to pay.

Been more than 80 members, a yearly fee of US$100 with an estimated ~50% of
exemptions would put in SL general fund ~US$4.000 per year, probably enough
for basic operations.


-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 14:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> there are ~US$65,000 available for planning/distributing among
> activities/teams/projects etc.


I think its essential that this be spent in ways that led directly to
further income, to grow the project.
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 2:03 GMT+08:00 Chris Leonard :

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> >
> > On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012),
> the
> >> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the
> existing
> >> Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
> >> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.
> >
> >
> > That makes sense :) Thanks!
> >
>
> Yes, prior to the 2012 Amended FSA, I don't think Sugar Labs had paid
> anything to SFC, so there was a one-time 10% payment on assets in the
> bank.  Since that time it is 10% of revenue (donations).  FWIW, I
> don't think they are taking their 10% cut of our annual bank account
> interest, not that it amounts to much or matters one way or the other.
>
> cjl
>


Going back to the annual budget planning after confirming all the numbers
and deducing the already passed motions, there are ~US$65,000 available for
planning/distributing among activities/teams/projects etc.

-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Chris Leonard]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012), the
>> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing
>> Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
>> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.
>
>
> That makes sense :) Thanks!
>

Yes, prior to the 2012 Amended FSA, I don't think Sugar Labs had paid
anything to SFC, so there was a one-time 10% payment on assets in the
bank.  Since that time it is 10% of revenue (donations).  FWIW, I
don't think they are taking their 10% cut of our annual bank account
interest, not that it amounts to much or matters one way or the other.

cjl
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 13:03, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012), the
> Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing
> Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
> general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.


That makes sense :) 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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-12 0:56 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were
>> cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> Total Income 10% of Total Income
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015 $9.028,56 $902,86
>> 2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22
>> 2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
>> 2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
>> *Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*
>>
>>
>> Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
>> I´m attaching the corrected file.
>>
>
> 2012 seems odd? :)
>

Sorry I missed to explain this. By the date of the agreement  (2012), the
Project agreed that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing
Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy’s
general fund additional to the 10% of that years income.

;D

-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 11 May 2016 at 12:50, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were
> cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this:
>
>
>
> Total Income 10% of Total Income
>
>
>
> 2015 $9.028,56 $902,86
> 2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22
> 2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
> 2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
> *Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*
>
>
> Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
> I´m attaching the corrected file.
>

2012 seems odd? :)
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

You are totally right Adam, I'm sorry I did not notice these were
cumulative values. Corrected table would look like this:



Total Income 10% of Total Income



2015 $9.028,56 $902,86
2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22
2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92
2012 $208,26 $1.908,27
*Total* *$108.088,19* *$12.696,26*


Also made the correction on the spread sheet and projected annual budget.
I´m attaching the corrected file.

Sorry again and best regards,
Laura V



2016-05-11 23:58 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
> >
> > 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard <
> cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > ...
> >>> >
> >>> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
> >>> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
> expenditures
> >>> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
> >>> >
> >>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is
> my
> >>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a
> 10%
> >>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
> >>> >
> >>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
> Agreement.
> >>> >
> >>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
> >>> >
> >>> > "Fees.
> >>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
> >>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
> >>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
> >>> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
> >>> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
> >>> >
> >>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
> >>> >
> >>> > cjl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
> >>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
> >>
> >>
> >> There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands
> unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
> >>
> >>> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
> >>
> >>
> >> 10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
> days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
> carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
> >>
> >
> > According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent
> (10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
> > limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
> operations.
> >
> > Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions
> made to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
> between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
> actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
> early this year);
>
> Laura,
>
> I think you are misinterpreting https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance
>
> When it says "Donated To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" that implies a
> cumulative total over the years, just like every other line-item in those
> lower paragraphs, for each financial year.
>
> In conclusion your table appears to be (accidentally) greatly exaggerating
> the amounts being paid (held for) SFConservancy, so you may want issue a
> corrected version.
>
> Regards-
> Adam
>
> > Total Income
> > 10% of Total Income
> > Donated To SFC
> > Difference
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015
> > $9.028,56
> > $902,86
> > $12.683,40
> > ($11.780,54)
> > 2014
> > $49.622,18
> > $4.962,22
> > $11.780,54
> > ($6.818,32)
> > 2013
> > $49.229,19
> > $4.922,92
> > $6.818,34
> > ($1.895,42)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Total
> > $107.879,93
> > $10.787,99
> > $31.282,28
> > ($20.494,29)
> >
> >
> >> Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect
> those and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if
> we as a community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Adam,
> >
> > I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so
> we can clarify the numbers.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > laura v
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> cjl
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Laura V.
> > I SomosAZUCAR.Org
> >
> > Identi.ca/Skype 

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On May 11, 2016 11:19 AM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>
> 2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :
>>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard 
wrote:
>>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
>>> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
expenditures
>>> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
>>> >>
>>> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>>> >
>>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
>>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
>>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>>> >
>>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
Agreement.
>>> >
>>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>>> >
>>> > "Fees.
>>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
>>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
>>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>>> >
>>> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
>>> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
>>> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
>>> >
>>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>>> >
>>> > cjl
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
>>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>>
>>
>> There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands
unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
>>
>>> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>>
>>
>> 10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
>>
>
> According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent
(10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
> limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
operations.
>
> Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions made
to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
early this year);

Laura,

I think you are misinterpreting https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance

When it says "Donated To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" that implies a
cumulative total over the years, just like every other line-item in those
lower paragraphs, for each financial year.

In conclusion your table appears to be (accidentally) greatly exaggerating
the amounts being paid (held for) SFConservancy, so you may want issue a
corrected version.

Regards-
Adam

> Total Income
> 10% of Total Income
> Donated To SFC
> Difference
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015
> $9.028,56
> $902,86
> $12.683,40
> ($11.780,54)
> 2014
> $49.622,18
> $4.962,22
> $11.780,54
> ($6.818,32)
> 2013
> $49.229,19
> $4.922,92
> $6.818,34
> ($1.895,42)
>
>
>
>
>
> Total
> $107.879,93
> $10.787,99
> $31.282,28
> ($20.494,29)
>
>
>> Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect
those and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if
we as a community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
>
>
> Adam,
>
> I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so
we can clarify the numbers.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> laura v
>
>>
>>>
>>> cjl
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-08 0:20 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard 
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
>> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
>> expenditures
>> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
>> >>
>> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>> >
>> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
>> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
>> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>> >
>> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship
>> Agreement.
>> >
>> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>> >
>> > "Fees.
>> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
>> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
>> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>> >
>> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
>> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
>> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
>> >
>> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>> >
>> > cjl
>>
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
>> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>>
>
> There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands
> unless you have information that nobody else has :-)
>
> Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>>
>
> 10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
> days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
> carefully please if they have time this weekend please.
>
>
According to the agreement, the Project agreed to donate ten percent (10%)
of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily
limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general
operations.

Still, there must be a mistake or some additional terms or additions made
to this agreement, because there is a large difference (US$20.494,29)
between what the Project should have donated to SFC and what has been
actually donated for the past 3 years (according to the numbers published
early this year);



Total Income 10% of Total Income Donated To SFC Difference





2015 $9.028,56 $902,86 $12.683,40 ($11.780,54)
2014 $49.622,18 $4.962,22 $11.780,54 ($6.818,32)
2013 $49.229,19 $4.922,92 $6.818,34 ($1.895,42)





*Total* *$107.879,93* *$10.787,99* *$31.282,28* *($20.494,29)*


Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect those
> and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if we as a
> community have done our own homework first, Thanks!
>

Adam,

I would recommend to dig deeper into this point with the Conservancy so we
can clarify the numbers.

Thanks in advance,
laura v


>
>> cjl
>>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Caryl Bigenho]

OK. I'm with Samson on this. If we had the ability to spend small amounts on 
things for conferences and exhibitions like sticker materials, banners, or even 
pizza lunches for our booth volunteers so they wouldn't have to leave to go 
eat, we could do a better job of "selling" SugarLabs and its projects. But I 
think members (not just SLOBs) should have input on this. I suggested $100 max 
without prior SLOB approval. Others may think it should be higher or lower.
Caryl

From: samsongo...@hotmail.com
To: lio...@olpc-france.org; d...@lab6.com
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 21:25:42 +0100
CC: sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-...@lists.laptop.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open 
issues to discuss




Well, I won't go against lionel, but I have something to say. Is not as if 
everyone wants to take money from SL but for the benefit for the SugarLabs. If 
we keep using this mindset I don't we will be able to grow bigger as planned. 
My project was for the betterment for both Nigeria and SL. Like I said before I 
believe in helping not profit organization. I volunteer for Schlumberger SEED 
project which claudia is aware of. Guess what, I don't receive money from the 
company. It up to SL to decide how to get users, so my project was a way I know 
I can be able to get more users. Sometimes you have to spend to make things 
bigger. Nigeria is a third world country, so lot of cash don't flow. Thanks
Samson Goddy

Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:09:08 +0200
From: lionel.la...@gmail.com
To: d...@lab6.com
CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open 
issues to discuss

Yep.
2016-05-07 22:06 GMT+02:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
Do you think having the motion as it is with $Y = 0 is ok?


___

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
  ___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[samson goddy]

Well, I won't go against lionel, but I have something to say. Is not as if 
everyone wants to take money from SL but for the benefit for the SugarLabs. If 
we keep using this mindset I don't we will be able to grow bigger as planned. 
My project was for the betterment for both Nigeria and SL. Like I said before I 
believe in helping not profit organization. I volunteer for Schlumberger SEED 
project which claudia is aware of. Guess what, I don't receive money from the 
company. It up to SL to decide how to get users, so my project was a way I know 
I can be able to get more users. Sometimes you have to spend to make things 
bigger. Nigeria is a third world country, so lot of cash don't flow. Thanks
Samson Goddy

Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:09:08 +0200
From: lionel.la...@gmail.com
To: d...@lab6.com
CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open 
issues to discuss

Yep.
2016-05-07 22:06 GMT+02:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
Do you think having the motion as it is with $Y = 0 is ok?


___

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

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Leonard 
wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard 
> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
> >> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all
> expenditures
> >> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
> >>
> >> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
> >
> > I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
> > understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
> > cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
> >
> > That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement.
> >
> > http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
> >
> > "Fees.
> > The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
> > Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
> > all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
> >
> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
> >
> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
> >
> > cjl
>
>
> Adam,
>
> As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
> Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?
>

There no reason to believe otherwise.  This agreement is what stands unless
you have information that nobody else has :-)

Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.
>

10% of initial capital too?  Sorry am traveling non-stop for the coming
days, but someone should read the agreement (attached by CJL, Thanks!!)
carefully please if they have time this weekend please.

Then if there are outstanding questions accumulating, I can collect those
and communicate those questions to SFConservancy intermittently, if we as a
community have done our own homework first, Thanks!


> cjl
>

--
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

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

On 7 May 2016 at 11:47, Chris Leonard  wrote:

> > I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
> > confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
> > template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
> >
> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
> >
> > cjl
>
> this 2012 version


Lets uplosd this to the wiki :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Chris Leonard]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Chris Leonard  wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
>> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all expenditures
>> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
>>
>> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
>
> I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
> understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
> cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).
>
> That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement.
>
> http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>
> "Fees.
> The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
> Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
> all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."
>
> I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
> confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
> template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement
>
> cjl


Adam,

As SFC contact, could you please confirm that this 2012 version of the
Amended FSA is the currently effective agreement?

Note, it shows the 10% cut of revenue, no transaction fees.

cjl


AmendedFSASugar.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Chris Leonard]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Adam Holt  wrote:

...

> In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
> legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all expenditures
> (outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.
>
> (But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)

I think you are wrong, but I am still looking for the proof.  It is my
understanding that SFC takes 10% of incoming donations only, not a 10%
cut of all transactions (inbound and outbound).

That is what is described in their template Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement.

http://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf

"Fees.
The FIXME-SIGNATORIES agree to donate ten percent (10%) of the
Project's gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to,
all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations."

I'm looking for an executed copy of the current SugarLabs-SFC FSA to
confirm, unfortunately the wiki version looks at variance with the
template, but as a wiki page, it has no "official" status.

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SFC_Fiscal_Agreement

cjl
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

>
>
> 2016-05-07 9:28 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :
>
>> On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>> > the budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
>> (USD$12,000.00)
>>
>> On this narrow point, I'd (assume) Translation Community Manager outlay
>> represents $12,000 + 10% for SFConservancy = $13,200 total, from May 1st
>> 2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.
>>
> Thank you Adam for helping us understand. I had no idea how the
> contribution for the SFC was calculated. Does the 10% apply for every
> transaction (incomes and outcomes) or is it only for outcomes?
>
> Can you please confirm if the 10% (USD$ 1,200) will go under the "Donated
> To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" liability account?
>

I'm presuming so.

In other words that SL's effective payment to SFConservancy (for
legal/financial/administrative service) is equal to 10% of all expenditures
(outlays) each fiscal year, i.e. March 1st to end of February.

(But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong!)
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-07 9:28 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
> > the budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
> (USD$12,000.00)
>
> On this narrow point, I'd (assume) Translation Community Manager outlay
> represents $12,000 + 10% for SFConservancy = $13,200 total, from May 1st
> 2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.
>
Thank you Adam for helping us understand. I had no idea how the
contribution for the SFC was calculated. Does the 10% apply for every
transaction (incomes and outcomes) or is it only for outcomes?

Can you please confirm if the 10% (USD$ 1,200) will go under the "Donated
To [Software Freedom] Conservancy" liability account?

Best regards
-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Adam Holt]

On May 6, 2016 5:45 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
> the budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
(USD$12,000.00)

On this narrow point, I'd (assume) Translation Community Manager outlay
represents $12,000 + 10% for SFConservancy = $13,200 total, from May 1st
2016 to Apr 30 2017 anyway.
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Laura Vargas]

2016-05-07 2:25 GMT+08:00 Adam Holt :

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Karen Sandler 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-06 12:06, Adam Holt wrote:
>>
>> s/he tries to do that, SFConservancy has explained to me that they
>>> often take a month-or-so to get all receipts entered into their
>>> system, so the Financial Manager cannot in fact get hard information
>>> about January.  My understanding from SFConservancy is that on
>>> February 10th, we could only get hard info on December's financials,
>>> and even then there's no absolute guarantee, as receipts come in very
>>> late at times.
>>>
>>
> I meant to clarify above that SFConservancy has no possible way provide SL
> fully complete/accurate financial info when receipts are sometimes
> submitted ~90 days late?  What Karen says below, exactly!
>
> In short, the current/proposed Financial Manager job description (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc)
> needs more tuning of its operational mechanics month-by-month and
> quarter-by-quarter, for the reasons Karen laid out.
>
> If in the end SL will benefit from 10+ hours-per-month of professional
> financial consulting/reporting every month, we cannot make an underpaid
> Financial Manager and others' lives impossible, by imposing more accounting
> burdens than is in fact possible within 10
> hours-per-month-or-whatever-is-recommended, such that nothing happens in
> the end (back to square one worst case) if we ask for too much.
>
> PS on a more positive note (!) can someone help me publish SFConservancy's
> latest travel/expense/reimbursement guidelines and requirements directly
> off of https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance#For_funding_travel ?  Is
> there a public link somewhere already, or can we make one now, if someone
> has this/these document(s) handy?
>
> On the one hand it sounds ridiculous, in the age where most of us
>>> obtain live bank statements online, that we cannot get confirmed
>>> up-to-date financials until 2 months later!  But what other options
>>> are there?  Should we accept known-imprecise financial reporting in
>>> exchange for recency?
>>>
>>
>> It's great you're contemplating hiring a financial manager - increased
>> engagement from SL in its finances might solve some of the problems from
>> third-parties that are the root cause of delays in update to the books (we
>> cannot help the fact that travelers sometimes take a long time to ask for
>> reimbursement, for example). As Adam indicates, any faster financial info
>> would surely be less precise. As we hear in reports from others, we're the
>> fastest at getting our financial data up to date in the entire industry. We
>> keep books for almost 40 projects that have many transactions, and we're
>> doing it with only a staff of 3 who have a lot of other work too.  A
>> financial manager will be able to track the few transactions that haven't
>> processed in the interim so you have the granularilty when you need it.
>>
>> More realistically, it's worth reiterating that building an annual budget
>> is really what you should focus on.
>
>
I sent an email on April 17 with the Subject SL 2016 Annual Budget and a
draft based on the numbers published by Adam.

Dave made some interesting suggestions and I do agree that there is a need
for financial vision and evaluation (4 to 5 simple indicators of
Community's Financial Health).


> We will track spending against it on an ongoing basis. You currently have
>> a balance of over $80k that has not changed in some time
>
>
Latter on April 21, I attached an updated draft for the Budget including
the financial data of the 2016 approved motions by SLOBs so far.

So, without counting with any more income in the period, and reducing the
budget allowed for Chris Leonard's Internationalization tasks
(USD$12,000.00) and Walter Conferences Travels (USD$ 3,977.42), the net
asset value comes to ~USD$ 66,000.00.

I also considered the projected yearly fees for the conservancy (truth is I
am not sure how it is calculated) so I did estimate with the simple 4 year
average (USD$ 8,297,33).

Therefore the new estimated asset value would be something around ~USD$
57,600.00

Of course, someone from the SLOBs should confirm the figures.I am attaching
the draft here again.


> - are you contemplating undergoing expenses in a 2 or 3 month period that
>> would need exact amounts on a daily basis? For example, our own books
>> (which are much bigger) are updated at the same rate as SL's and it works
>> great for us as we build our budget and monitor income throughout the year.
>> A Financial manager could also save us time and heartache by vetting travel
>> reimbursement requests against the travel policy.
>>
>> Given the holistic discussion, it's also worth saying that while I (along
>> with everyone else at Conservancy) am a huge supporter of SLs and would be
>> happy for you to stay with us, we take a loss on our fiscal sponsorship