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

[Dave Crossland]

Do you have any more specific objections?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Adam Holt]

Progress.  Further progress will come after I speak with Bradley Kuhn in
coming weeks, to understand has real-world recommendations on
pacing/publishing financials, based on his extensive experiences with the
~40 NGO's he (as SFConservancy's de facto bookkeeper) supervises/supports.
I hope he has time in the coming week, but if not I will work around his
schedule.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I went over Caryl's google doc again after re-reading the below, and I
> must say that I am no longer surprised by Adam's comments at the SLOB
> meeting on Friday; it seems that these clearly expressed points were
> not addressed in the text that Caryl submitted.
>
> Adam, please review the Google Doc with my comments and let me know if
> this resolves your concerns.
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 10:06, Adam Holt  wrote:
> > The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard
> on
> > within
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
> > is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
> > better understood:
> >
> > - Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
> > not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager
> potential
> > monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month
> or
> > what?
> >
> > - The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial
> Manager's
> > life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
> > financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
> > advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
> > have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If
> s/he
> > is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want
> to
> > be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has
> pulled
> > the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a
> week
> > after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing
> she
> > can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if 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.
> >
> > 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?
> And
> > if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3
> months
> > every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of
> the
> > Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the
> best
> > of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of expenses/income
> > and balance on the last day of each month?
> >
> > - Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out
> these
> > 2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and
> appointment of
> > another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per
> 6-month
> > period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired immediately
> for
> > missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2 years?  If so,
> we
> > need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the Financial
> Manager
> > immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other, then we should
> say
> > that more explicitly.
>
> --
> 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] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I went over Caryl's google doc again after re-reading the below, and I
must say that I am no longer surprised by Adam's comments at the SLOB
meeting on Friday; it seems that these clearly expressed points were
not addressed in the text that Caryl submitted.

Adam, please review the Google Doc with my comments and let me know if
this resolves your concerns.

On 6 May 2016 at 10:06, Adam Holt  wrote:
> The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on
> within
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
> is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
> better understood:
>
> - Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
> not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential
> monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month or
> what?
>
> - The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's
> life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
> financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
> advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
> have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If s/he
> is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to
> be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled
> the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week
> after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing she
> can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if 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.
>
> 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?  And
> if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months
> every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of the
> Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the best
> of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of expenses/income
> and balance on the last day of each month?
>
> - Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these
> 2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment of
> another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per 6-month
> period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired immediately for
> missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2 years?  If so, we
> need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the Financial Manager
> immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other, then we should say
> that more explicitly.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[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. 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 - 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
> work for you. On average, you give back to us $36/week for *all* the
> services we provide to you. That's less than $2000 per year when we must
> pay our auditors $12k alone.
>
> As always you should definitely feel free to look for another nonprofit
> home. We deliberately designed our termination provisions to be very easy
> to leave. As I said, we're unaware of anyone doing it faster (and we hear
> that most are far slower in updating books) but we'd have no problem
> helping you to transition to another org.
>
> I don't always follow this list closely, but I'm happy to set up a call or
> IRC chat any time.
>
> karen
>
>
> Karen M. Sandler
> Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
> __
> Become a Supporter today! http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>
> --
> 
> 
> 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] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Adam

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, I've added them as comments in the
doc to help close them out

On 6 May 2016 at 12:06, Adam Holt  wrote:
> The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on
> within
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
> is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
> better understood:
>
> - Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
> not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential
> monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month or
> what?
>
> - The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's
> life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
> financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
> advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
> have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If s/he
> is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to
> be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled
> the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week
> after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing she
> can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if 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.
>
> 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?  And
> if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months
> every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of the
> Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the best
> of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of expenses/income
> and balance on the last day of each month?
>
> - Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these
> 2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment of
> another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per 6-month
> period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired immediately for
> missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2 years?  If so, we
> need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the Financial Manager
> immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other, then we should say
> that more explicitly.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>>> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my
>>> > motions
>>> > receive a majority vote.
>>>
>>> I just checked
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
>>> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
>>> as she says,
>>>
>>> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
>>> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion.
>>>
>>> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.
>>>
>>> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
>>> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
>>> month?)
>>>
>>> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
>>> within May :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>> I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion
>> 1, I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no
>> evidence that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a
>> shot. Re Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real
>> problem and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold
>> spending authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example,
>> Bernie, as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally approved
>> the request for the domain name payment. He already has that authority.) I
>> am fine with the other two motions as written.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>

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

[Adam Holt]

The financial spring cleaning CarylB, DaveC and others have worked hard on
within
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
is promising, but seems premature in my opinion, until its mechanics are
better understood:

- Even if we suppose that $X remains $200 (as it has been for many years,
not Board involvement for expenses under $200), Financial Manager potential
monthly stipend $Y still remains too vague.  Should $Y be $100 per month or
what?

- The prior "month" is very poorly defined, making the Financial Manager's
life impossible, if for example SL Board meets on Friday March 1st, and a
financial report summarizing February must be submitted "72 hours in
advance" by February 25th realistically, then the Financial Manager must
have worked for the prior week to get this right Feb 18-to-25th.   If s/he
is away that week for a family/professional emergency, and does not want to
be fired then s/he must do the work Feb 10-to-17th, and as such has pulled
the numbers from SFConservancy's system on February 10th, just over a week
after the prior SL board meeting.  So perhaps the only practical thing she
can do is run a report on the prior month of January?  And even if 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.

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?  And
if so, aren't we really asking for a rolling report of the prior ~3 months
every time?  Let`s spell it out, if in fact those are the true duties of
the Financial Manager -- to provide a rolling estimates (estimates, to the
best of his/her professional ability) of the prior 3 months of
expenses/income and balance on the last day of each month?

- Dismissal notice could be a lot more precise: "Failure to carry out these
2 duties for more than one meeting will result in removal and appointment
of another Finance Manager."  Can s/he miss one or both duties once per
6-month period due to death of a close family member?  Is s/he fired
immediately for missing one or both dutires twice, even if separated by 2
years?  If so, we need to spell it out.  If conversely we want to fire the
Financial Manager immediately, for failing to fulfill 1 duty or the other,
then we should say that more explicitly.



On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 6 May 2016 at 10:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>> > I am hoping all the differences have been ironed out and that my motions
>> > receive a majority vote.
>>
>> I just checked
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc/edit
>> and it still has a lot of my suggestions to be reviewed by Caryl, and
>> as she says,
>>
>> > I noticed, the last time I checked, amounts for $X and $Y had not been
>> > discussed. They are an important part of the motion.
>>
>> So I don't the motion for a finance manager can be passed today.
>>
>> However, can SLOBs pass a motion at any time? (And so the monthly
>> meetings are just to ensure no motions go undecided for more than a
>> month?)
>>
>> If so then I hope Caryl can firm up the motion and it can be passed
>> within May :)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>>
>
> I agree that there are a number of open issues in the motions. Re Motion
> 1, I am on the fence about making it a paid position: I have seen no
> evidence that that will make a difference, but I am willing to give it a
> shot. Re Motion 2, I have asked for evidence that (1) we are solving a real
> problem and (2) if it is not better to delegate low-volume/low-threshold
> spending authority to the teams, where the knowledge resides. (For example,
> Bernie, as head of the infrastructure team, could have unilaterally
> approved the request for the domain name payment. He already has that
> authority.) I am fine with the other two motions as written.
>
> -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

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

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Caryl!

Sorry to hear about that - best wishes for you and Ed that it all goes
smoothly! :)

On 5 May 2016 at 12:14, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Hi all...
> I finally had a chance to check out the discussions about the motions I
> have proposed. Unfortunately I don't really have the chance to do much
> commenting as I am restricted to communicating with my I phone for a while.
>
> After a great 10 days in WA and going to LinuxFestNW (on our own dime), we
> got home and Ed started having dizzy spells. After a lot of testing, it has
> been decided that the time to get a pacemaker has come. So, if all goes
> according to plan, it will be implanted this evening and he will get to go
> home about 24 hours later.
>
> That means I will miss tomorrow's meeting. If I need to add anything to
> the motion or discussion before it comes up for vote... Send an email to
> this thread.
>
> Caryl
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 3, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 09:37, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>
>> Why does the vision statement say "but not phones"? I run Sugarizer on my
>> iPhone and Ed's Android phone. There are some formatting issues but they
>> are easily overcome. In the real world of developing countries, children
>> are probably more likely to have access to one of these tiny screens than
>> any tablet or computer. They deserve access to Sugar too.
>
>
> I added that because when I tested it seemed to not work well, but I don't
> object to removing it and have just done so :)
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Vision_proposal_2016&diff=98338&oldid=98337
>
>


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

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

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi all...
I finally had a chance to check out the discussions about the motions I have 
proposed. Unfortunately I don't really have the chance to do much commenting as 
I am restricted to communicating with my I phone for a while. 

After a great 10 days in WA and going to LinuxFestNW (on our own dime), we got 
home and Ed started having dizzy spells. After a lot of testing, it has been 
decided that the time to get a pacemaker has come. So, if all goes according to 
plan, it will be implanted this evening and he will get to go home about 24 
hours later.

That means I will miss tomorrow's meeting. If I need to add anything to the 
motion or discussion before it comes up for vote... Send an email to this 
thread.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 3, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 3 May 2016 at 09:37, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>> Why does the vision statement say "but not phones"? I run Sugarizer on my 
>> iPhone and Ed's Android phone. There are some formatting issues but they are 
>> easily overcome. In the real world of developing countries, children are 
>> probably more likely to have access to one of these tiny screens than any 
>> tablet or computer. They deserve access to Sugar too.
> 
> I added that because when I tested it seemed to not work well, but I don't 
> object to removing it and have just done so :) 
> 
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Vision_proposal_2016&diff=98338&oldid=98337
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 May 2016 at 09:37, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Why does the vision statement say "but not phones"? I run Sugarizer on my
> iPhone and Ed's Android phone. There are some formatting issues but they
> are easily overcome. In the real world of developing countries, children
> are probably more likely to have access to one of these tiny screens than
> any tablet or computer. They deserve access to Sugar too.


I added that because when I tested it seemed to not work well, but I don't
object to removing it and have just done so :)

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Vision_proposal_2016&diff=98338&oldid=98337
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

[Caryl Bigenho]

Why does the vision statement say "but not phones"? I run Sugarizer on my 
iPhone and Ed's Android phone. There are some formatting issues but they are 
easily overcome. In the real world of developing countries, children are 
probably more likely to have access to one of these tiny screens than any 
tablet or computer. They deserve access to Sugar too.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 2, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Lionel Laské  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Would like to add a quick motion to ensure we share the Vision Proposal 2016 
> [1].
> Not the goal part of the page, at first.
> 
> Best regards from France.
> 
>Lionel.
> 
> 
> [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016
> 
> 2016-04-29 16:29 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :
>> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>> 
>> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>> 
>> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by 
>> CJL [1]);
>> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
>> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let 
>> mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009 to 
>> pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not revisited 
>> this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has mentioned that 
>> the money would make a big difference. It seems we could accommodate 
>> individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or not they keep 
>> the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should discuss it.
>> 
>> regards.
>> 
>> -walter
>> 
>> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
>> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
___
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] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Lionel Laské]

Hi all,

Would like to add a quick motion to ensure we share the Vision Proposal
2016 [1].
Not the goal part of the page, at first.

Best regards from France.

   Lionel.


[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016

2016-04-29 16:29 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :

> Our next meeting will be Friday, 6 May, at 16 UTC.
>
> We have a few outstanding motions and topics of discussion:
>
> * Samson Goody's i18n proposal for Yoruba (See the proposal circulated by
> CJL [1]);
> * Updating to GPL3 license (See discussion thread [2]);
> * GSoC mentor payments: it has been proposed (in a private email) to let
> mentors have access to the stipend paid by Google. We had decided in 2009
> to pool these stipends into the general Sugar Labs funds and had not
> revisited this decision in the ensuing years. At least one mentor has
> mentioned that the money would make a big difference. It seems we could
> accommodate individual decisions on behalf of each mentor as to whether or
> not they keep the stipend or pool it in the general funds, but we should
> discuss it.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/slobs/2016-April/003442.html
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/685
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
> ___
> 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