Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
+ 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 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&D 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
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&D 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
On 11 May 2016 at 15:35, 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. > I think raising funds from members' dues is a fine idea :) 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
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&D 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
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
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&D 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
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
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
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&D 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
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
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&D SomosAZUCAR.Org > > > > Identi.ca/Skype acaire > > IRC kaametza > > > > Happy Learning! > > > -- Laura V. I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org IRC kaam
Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss
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&D 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
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&D 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
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 : 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
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 : 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
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
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
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
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
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
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&D 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
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
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 >> work for you. On average, you give back t