Re: [IAEP] Sugar network / School Network

2016-05-18 6:47 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > > Hi! > > On 17 May 2016 at 17:54, Laura Vargas wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> 2016-05-15 22:53 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland : >> >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> On 15 May 2016 at 13:29, Laura Vargas

Re: [IAEP] [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

Sent from my iPhone > On May 18, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Sean DALY wrote: > > >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly >> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > Done. Wow! bravo Walter that was quick!! Sean ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY wrote: > >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY wrote: > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly >> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs. > > > > ah I was

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly > SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs. ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the meetings, with recourse

Re: [IAEP] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On 18 May 2016 at 13:07, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Dave Crossland has proposed 2 additional motions that are linked at the > bottom of the first 2 motions. They are still in the editing stage as far > as I can see. > I am waiting for Adam to draft what he wanted to see there

Re: [IAEP] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

Hi Again… I just changed it so that the SLOB members can edit the motions. Please! Don't Edit Until You Have Discussed and Reached Consensis! Caryl From: cbige...@hotmail.com To: olpc-...@lists.laptop.org; d...@lab6.com; h...@laptop.org; walter.ben...@gmail.com; callaur...@gmail.com;

[IAEP] 2 Motions Ready (or Not) [Sur] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

Hi Folks… I think it is time to take action on the 2 motions I have for the SLOB. Motion A is for a Finance Manager and Motion B lays out the procedures for requesting and disbursing funds. A lot of editing has been done by a few people, but the amounts for $Y (a stipend for the FM) and $X the

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal > financial responsibility for the Conservancy account. In my view it's theoretically reasonable, however there is a real risk of red tape logjam. It's

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal, > this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already > approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

On 18 May 2016 at 10:05, Walter Bender wrote: > for some reason or other, the SFC seems to think that every outlay > requires explicit approval from the entire board FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal financial responsibility for the

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal, this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's

[IAEP] Deployments seeking volunteers?

Hi In https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vacancies I see a link to http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg10937.html Is this deployment still active? :) Are any other deployments seeking volunteers in 2016? -- Cheers Dave ___ IAEP --

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

+1 for the remark of Adam. +1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged. Lionel. 2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt : > I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly > unprofessional, in all instances. > > Nevertheless I am

Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 98, Issue 52

The information collected at first boot is not relevant to any personal research. At deployments I am familiar with, the first boot is done at installation time to check the install and perform configuration. At this time, the laptop has not been assigned to a user. For deployments I work with,