[IAEP] Motion: The value of $Y in the Finance Manager Guidelines should be $200

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

Motion: The value of $Y in the Finance Manager Guidelines should be $200

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

Re: [IAEP] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 2 June 2016 at 11:59, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
> I think most motions are dealt with at SLOB meetings. That is why there is
> such a "log jam." Often motions are made more or less "off the cuff" and
> need a lot of revision before they can be voted on. But meeting time is used
> up discussing them anyway.

Hmm. I see in 
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-03-04#Voting_By_Laws
that all motions posted via email __MUST__ be passed within 168 hours
(1 week) or they automatically fail and are not eligible for voting on
at the follow SLOB meeting unless they have been explicitly
resubmitted.

> The motions in the pdf are essentially the same as the ones posted before in
> the doc. The only major change was to go back to $Y as the amount for
> incidental expenses, thus allowing the SLOB to set the amount now and change
> it easily as needed. This follows the example (Walter's or your idea?) of
> setting the FM's compensation initially at $0 with the ability of the SLOB
> to change it as needed.

Okay - I will submit a motion setting the price :)

> Your motions are on the agenda so I assume you will see them tomorrow.

I am glad they are, although I don't think they should be, per the
above they have failed and need to be resubmitted :)

-- 
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] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender  wrote:

> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak
>> with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that
>> Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry
>> about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it
>> directly.
>>
>
> This last statement makes no sense to me.  Bernie "does not" need to ask
> permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"?
>

Right. Bernie can go ahead and make the purchase on the assumption that it
is reasonable and will be approved.

If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he
would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending,
he's out of pocket.


> Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete
> goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If the
> latter, what problem are we solving?
>

The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add
another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a
'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small
expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally structured
role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending.

If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more structure, I
recommend a close reading of http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm -
I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in
flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Personal comments on the Sugar 2016 Vision proposal

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Caryl and Sam

Reading the proposed Vision statement[*] we seem to be confusing a Vision
> Statement (which tends to be short & high level) with a detailed list of
> goals that Sugar Labs should try to accomplish this year.
>

I moved the goals to their own page to clarify what is goals and what is
vision; thus the vision page is now very clearly short and high level; and
I have then edited the goals page to address Sam's points,
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=2016_Goals=history


>
>- The goals need to be based on the level of volunteer and
>professional support Sugar Labs expects to have, and not just be everyone's
>wish list.
>
>
Don't put the cart before the horse :) I think it is best to gather
everyone's wish list items in a single place, and then in a second stage
they can be prioritised in terms of effort:impact ratios, resource
availability, etc.


>
>- A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support.
>
>
Sure! What do you think that date should be, Sam?

What do other people think?

I offer that Sugar Labs should follow OLPC Inc's lead on this, and continue
to support the XO-1 for as long as they are.

Does anyone know for how long OLPC will be supporting the XO-1?


>
>- As time goes on, it will take more work to backport things to work
>properly on its processor (lacking certain i686 CPU instructions) and its
>256 MB of RAM.  Unless Sugar & its apps will support a wide range of
>underlying library versions {good for cross-distro work}, those will have
>to be backported as well.
>
> James Cameron is already doing this work, and I see no reason to make
James Cameron's job harder, while he is doing it, by making him solely
responsible for doing that work.


>
>- Before Sugar Labs purchases any XO-4s, OLPC's and Quanta's
>end-of-life dates for the product need to be determined, along with
>expected purchase demand.
>
>The design is now 3 years old.  If Marvell stops making the
>processors, or another battery manufacturer decides to stop making the XO's
>irregular battery size again, Sugar Labs could have a lot of undesired
>stock on hand.
>
> Can you find out these dates for us, Sam? :)

If not you, who can tell us these dates?


>
>- Do not limit Sugar to any particular technology on Chrome OS.
>Schools are purchasing Chromebooks *because* they can be locked down to a
>known set of applications.  Many districts may be unwilling to put them in
>development mode so Sugar can be used.  Development mode and/or "rooting"
>the device may cause other programs they use for testing, etc., to refuse
>to work.
>
>
Clearly Crouton will work well for anyone who owns their own machine.

For districts, I think Broadway might provide a solution, but clearly the
best way to provide the Sugar learning environment to ChromeOS users is
with Sugarizer.

I've updated the goals page to list these 2 paths forwards.


>
>- If Sugar is to be accepted by larger school districts, it needs to
>fit their enterprise software model of deployment.  This includes
>potentially the Tivoization of Sugar, however contradictory that may be
>with the GPLv3.
>
>
This point is very vague for me :) Please explain more about it :D

What larger school districts is even interested in Sugar? (I'm totally
ignorant here, but I don't expect we would see any districts in any country
start to deploy sugar in 2016.)

What are schools' "enterprise software models of deployment"? Where can we
read about them?

And what would the Tivoization of Sugar be like? :)


>- If you nag for funding persistently the way the vision currently
>describes, I think Sugar Labs is more likely to lose members than gain any
>funding.  Asking quarterly (like Public TV stations in the US) could be
>appropriate.
>
> I found this point rather confusing, because nagging on a quarterly basis
is exactly what I had in mind :)

What is the value of "members" who don't contribute to the mailing lists,
to the software, or to the funding of the project? Its totally normal for
people to leave projects, and seems to me rather senseless to claim people
are 'members' when they don't contribute in any way in recent years.

>
>- I do not see a goal to get Sugar more widely used in schools.
>
> Then you should have added one! :) I took the liberty of going ahead and
doing this already, but please do edit what I drafted :)


>
>- This may require having someone create detailed guides describing
>how Sugar can be integrated with various state curriculums, similar to work
>Claudia and Mellisa did for OLPC-A.
>
>
Where can I see the work Claudia and Mellisa did?


>
>- There may be software tweaks required to make school districts (and
>not just individual schools) happy as well.
>
> Sure!

Who here has any connections to any school districts? :)

>
>- Has Sugar Labs given up on expanding its presence in larger/US-style
>   

Re: [IAEP] Personal comments on the Sugar 2016 Vision proposal

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi…
I think Sam is asking some really good, but difficult, questions which is 
exactly what SugarLabs needs. We do need, as he suggests, an overall Vision 
Statement (SugarLabs Goals) and more specific objectives to be met to achieve 
those goals (education-eze, sorry folks).
He also makes some very, very good observations on the directions we should be 
heading in light of the actual state of XOs and Sugar use in general. So often 
it seems SugarLabs is chasing history rather than looking to the future.
Why can't we start with a vision statement that outlines some broad overall 
goals? Then we can go on to develop some specific achievable objectives that 
include (as all objectives must… education-eze again) : What will be 
accomplished, by Whom, When, using What Tools, and How will the Success be 
Measured?
A good place to start would be to answer as many of Sam's questions as possible 
so we have a clear idea of what is possible and what we can expect to be 
working with in the future. Then make the Vision Statement based on the result 
of the overview and fill in with both short term and long term goals.
Caryl


From: sam...@greenfeld.org
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 22:00:55 -0400
To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: [IAEP] Personal comments on the Sugar 2016 Vision proposal

I don't know if I will be able to make the meeting tomorrow; I am not really in 
a position to monitor IRC while at work.

Reading the proposed Vision statement[*] we seem to be confusing a Vision 
Statement (which tends to be short & high level) with a detailed list of goals 
that Sugar Labs should try to accomplish this year.

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

That said:
The goals need to be based on the level of volunteer and professional support 
Sugar Labs expects to have, and not just be everyone's wish list.

A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support.  As time goes on, it 
will take more work to backport things to work properly on its processor 
(lacking certain i686 CPU instructions) and its 256 MB of RAM.  Unless Sugar & 
its apps will support a wide range of underlying library versions {good for 
cross-distro work}, those will have to be backported as well.

Before Sugar Labs purchases any XO-4s, OLPC's and Quanta's end-of-life dates 
for the product need to be determined, along with expected purchase demand.  

The design is now 3 years old.  If Marvell stops making the processors, or 
another battery manufacturer decides to stop making the XO's irregular battery 
size again, Sugar Labs could have a lot of undesired stock on hand.

Do not limit Sugar to any particular technology on Chrome OS.  Schools are 
purchasing Chromebooks *because* they can be locked down to a known set of 
applications.  Many districts may be unwilling to put them in development mode 
so Sugar can be used.  Development mode and/or "rooting" the device may cause 
other programs they use for testing, etc., to refuse to work.

If Sugar is to be accepted by larger school districts, it needs to fit their 
enterprise software model of deployment.  This includes potentially the 
Tivoization of Sugar, however contradictory that may be with the GPLv3.

If you nag for funding persistently the way the vision currently describes, I 
think Sugar Labs is more likely to lose members than gain any funding.  Asking 
quarterly (like Public TV stations in the US) could be appropriate.

I do not see a goal to get Sugar more widely used in schools.  This may require 
having someone create detailed guides describing how Sugar can be integrated 
with various state curriculums, similar to work Claudia and Mellisa did for 
OLPC-A.  

There may be software tweaks required to make school districts (and not just 
individual schools) happy as well.

Has Sugar Labs given up on expanding its presence in larger/US-style school 
districts, or is this just an oversight?



___
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] Personal comments on the Sugar 2016 Vision proposal

[Samuel Greenfeld]

I don't know if I will be able to make the meeting tomorrow; I am not
really in a position to monitor IRC while at work.

Reading the proposed Vision statement[*] we seem to be confusing a Vision
Statement (which tends to be short & high level) with a detailed list of
goals that Sugar Labs should try to accomplish this year.

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

That said:

   - The goals need to be based on the level of volunteer and professional
   support Sugar Labs expects to have, and not just be everyone's wish list.

   - A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support.  As time
   goes on, it will take more work to backport things to work properly on its
   processor (lacking certain i686 CPU instructions) and its 256 MB of RAM.
   Unless Sugar & its apps will support a wide range of underlying library
   versions {good for cross-distro work}, those will have to be backported as
   well.

   - Before Sugar Labs purchases any XO-4s, OLPC's and Quanta's end-of-life
   dates for the product need to be determined, along with expected purchase
   demand.

   The design is now 3 years old.  If Marvell stops making the processors,
   or another battery manufacturer decides to stop making the XO's irregular
   battery size again, Sugar Labs could have a lot of undesired stock on hand.

   - Do not limit Sugar to any particular technology on Chrome OS.  Schools
   are purchasing Chromebooks *because* they can be locked down to a known set
   of applications.  Many districts may be unwilling to put them in
   development mode so Sugar can be used.  Development mode and/or "rooting"
   the device may cause other programs they use for testing, etc., to refuse
   to work.

   If Sugar is to be accepted by larger school districts, it needs to fit
   their enterprise software model of deployment.  This includes potentially
   the Tivoization of Sugar, however contradictory that may be with the GPLv3.

   - If you nag for funding persistently the way the vision currently
   describes, I think Sugar Labs is more likely to lose members than gain any
   funding.  Asking quarterly (like Public TV stations in the US) could be
   appropriate.

   - I do not see a goal to get Sugar more widely used in schools.  This
   may require having someone create detailed guides describing how Sugar can
   be integrated with various state curriculums, similar to work Claudia and
   Mellisa did for OLPC-A.

   There may be software tweaks required to make school districts (and not
   just individual schools) happy as well.

   Has Sugar Labs given up on expanding its presence in larger/US-style
   school districts, or is this just an oversight?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

>
>
> OK….
>
> It has been asked why do we need to have incidental expenses under a
> certain amount approved by the Financial Manager (and larger amounts
> approved by the board).  Up until now, some people have spent funds and
> asked for permission to do so later. While most of these expenses were
> legitimate and would probably have been approved right away, we have seen
> incidences of reluctance of the SLOB to approve some expeditures that were
> made without prior consulting. Don't ask for specific examples. If you want
> an example, read through past SLOB meetings and you will find them.
>

I have looked and not found these copious examples you have often referred
to.

>
> Almost every orgainzation I know of, be it public, private, for profit, or
> non profit has a proceedure like this to handle small expenses without
> having to bring them to a full vote of their boards. Why would this be?
> What are the advantages of having a procedute for "petty cash" type
> expenses?
>

We have existing mechanisms in the discretion afforded to team/project
leaders in the community already, although we should perhaps expand upon
that list.

>
> Here are just a few reasons:
>
> *Efficiency:* Being able to spend needed small amounts of money without
> full SLOB approval at a monthly meeting allows things to move ahead
> smoothly and reduces the "clutter" at meetings.
>

Again, in theory we already have this for infrastructure, i18n, and turtle
workshops. I am open to expanding the list on a targeted basis. For
example, I don't recall our ever giving Sean/marketing such latitude,
although it world certainly make sense.

>
> *Flexibility:* If meeting were weekly rather than monthly there might be
> no need for this proposal. However, with a once a month meeting with an
> over-full agenda, there is no flexibility to move quickly on opportunities
> that come up.
>

See response to "Efficiency."


>
> *Economy:* money may be saved by getting a "second opinion" on an
> expenditure. The Financial Manager may know of sources that are less
> expensive or of other ways to do something that will cost less. We saw this
> when Samson got help with his proposal for expenses for his translation
> project. It could apply to any expense. We need to be good stewards of
> SugarLabs funds.
>

Your example is not relevant as it was a major proposal, not a petty cash
outlay. Do you have any real-world examples?

>
> *Compliance: *The Software Freedom Foundation wants more accountability
> re: spending of SugarLabs funds. This will help achieve that goal. This is,
> perhaps, the most important reason listed here.
>

In my experience, the Conservancy seems to want full board approval for
every transaction regardless of whatever internal rules we establish. I am
curious as to how we will circumvent that here. In any case, compliance is
orthogonal to approval as far as I can see. Can you give me an example of
where it is not?

>
> I could probably go on with more and I'm sure many of you know of other
> good reasons that we could add but, I think these are excellent arguments
> in favor of allowing small amounts of $Y with approval of the Financial
> Manager and reporting monthly to the SLOB. (with Y set by SLOB and revised
> as seen fit).
>
> While I am in favor of the creation of the FM position in order to
facilitate relations with the Conservancy, I see the insertion of the FM
into the mix as mostly more rather than less red tape for purposes you are
proposing.

regards.

-walter


> Cheers!
> CAryl
>
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Caryl Bigenho]

OK….
It has been asked why do we need to have incidental expenses under a certain 
amount approved by the Financial Manager (and larger amounts approved by the 
board).  Up until now, some people have spent funds and asked for permission to 
do so later. While most of these expenses were legitimate and would probably 
have been approved right away, we have seen incidences of reluctance of the 
SLOB to approve some expeditures that were made without prior consulting. Don't 
ask for specific examples. If you want an example, read through past SLOB 
meetings and you will find them.
Almost every orgainzation I know of, be it public, private, for profit, or non 
profit has a proceedure like this to handle small expenses without having to 
bring them to a full vote of their boards. Why would this be? What are the 
advantages of having a procedute for "petty cash" type expenses?
Here are just a few reasons:
Efficiency: Being able to spend needed small amounts of money without full SLOB 
approval at a monthly meeting allows things to move ahead smoothly and reduces 
the "clutter" at meetings.
Flexibility: If meeting were weekly rather than monthly there might be no need 
for this proposal. However, with a once a month meeting with an over-full 
agenda, there is no flexibility to move quickly on opportunities that come up.
Economy: money may be saved by getting a "second opinion" on an expenditure. 
The Financial Manager may know of sources that are less expensive or of other 
ways to do something that will cost less. We saw this when Samson got help with 
his proposal for expenses for his translation project. It could apply to any 
expense. We need to be good stewards of SugarLabs funds.
Compliance: The Software Freedom Foundation wants more accountability re: 
spending of SugarLabs funds. This will help achieve that goal. This is, 
perhaps, the most important reason listed here.
I could probably go on with more and I'm sure many of you know of other good 
reasons that we could add but, I think these are excellent arguments in favor 
of allowing small amounts of $Y with approval of the Financial Manager and 
reporting monthly to the SLOB. (with Y set by SLOB and revised as seen fit).
Cheers!CAryl 


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

Re: [IAEP] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi Dave...

I think most motions are dealt with at SLOB meetings. That is why there is such 
a "log jam." Often motions are made more or less "off the cuff" and need a lot 
of revision before they can be voted on. But meeting time is used up discussing 
them anyway. 

Sometimes there is a time constraint (as there was for Samson's translation 
project). He got help with a revision and it was voted on between meetings 

The motions in the pdf are essentially the same as the ones posted before in 
the doc. The only major change was to go back to $Y as the amount for 
incidental expenses, thus allowing the SLOB to set the amount now and change it 
easily as needed. This follows the example (Walter's or your idea?) of setting 
the FM's compensation initially at $0 with the ability of the SLOB to change it 
as needed.

Your motions are on the agenda so I assume you will see them tomorrow.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I thought you already posted these motions 12 days ago in the thread "2 
> Motions Ready (or Not)" - and I also posted my 2 motions recently. 
> 
> I thought motions could be passed and voted on at any time?
> 
> Will the motions posted a while ago be voted on? Or did they lapse?
> 
> 
>> On 2 June 2016 at 07:51, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> Many thanks to those of you (especially Dave Crossland) who have helped 
>> refine these two motions so that they are relatively simple and easy to use 
>> (See attached for final versions). It is my hope that they will help 
>> SugarLabs move forward in a more efficient, smooth, and transparent fashion. 
>> They are designed to accomplish the following:
>> 
>> Allow small expenditures without the need for SLOB action
>> Provide compensation for the Financial Manager (FM) as deemed appropriate
>> Assure that requests for funding of projects are in order before they are 
>> formally presented to SLOB
>> Reduce the congestion at meetings with just one person, the FM, presenting 
>> requests for funds to the SLOB
>> 
>> Those of you who have helped so much with drafting the final version of 
>> these motions will notice that I have reset the amount for small requests to 
>> $Y, providing the ability of the SLOB to set this amount initially and 
>> adjust it as needed over time.
>> 
>> I am currently in the Dallas area for our older granddaughter's high school 
>> graduation which has all sorts of events all week. I will do all I can to 
>> "attend" tomorrow's meeting. If I'm not there, you all (Texas speak) will 
>> know why.
>> 
>> Caryl
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Part of this seems like a very silly discussion on this day and age. If,
> as in Walter's example, Bernie needs to spend $Y to keep things running he
> can simply send a text message to the FM. No big deal!
>
> And if the FM happens to be available and responses. I ask yet again, what
problem are we solving?

-walter



> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2 June 2016 at 10:17, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I don't really understand what you mean by functional vs
>>> divisional in the case of SL.
>>>
>>
>> Its about accounting more than anything else; in a divisional org, each
>> division has its own "Profits and Losses" statements, but in a functional
>> org, there is only one.
>>
>>
>>> The teams are functional and are the people in the community closest to
>>> the issues they are dealing with.
>>>
>>
>> Sure!!! :) I'm not saying anything is dysfunctional; the word
>> 'functional' is used in the context of org theory in a very specific
>> 'technical' way.
>>
>>
>>> Giving Bernie the ability to run to Microcenter to buy a connector to
>>> keep the servers running makes sense. Asking Bernie to speak with Person X
>>> to ask permission to do the same makes no sense. Having Bernie submit
>>> receipts to Person X to submit to the Conservancy makes sense.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with all that, and would add: Having Bernie submit receipts to
>> the Conservancy makes no sense.
>>
>> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak
>> with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that
>> Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry
>> about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it
>> directly.
>>
>
> This last statement makes no sense to me.  Bernie "does not" need to ask
> permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"? Or is the intention to
> *add* another person separate from any concrete goals within the
> organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If the latter, what
> problem are we solving?
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Caryl Bigenho]

Part of this seems like a very silly discussion on this day and age. If, as in 
Walter's example, Bernie needs to spend $Y to keep things running he can simply 
send a text message to the FM. No big deal!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Walter Bender  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2 June 2016 at 10:17, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>> I guess I don't really understand what you mean by functional vs divisional 
>>> in the case of SL.
>> 
>> Its about accounting more than anything else; in a divisional org, each 
>> division has its own "Profits and Losses" statements, but in a functional 
>> org, there is only one.
>>  
>>> The teams are functional and are the people in the community closest to the 
>>> issues they are dealing with.
>> 
>> Sure!!! :) I'm not saying anything is dysfunctional; the word 'functional' 
>> is used in the context of org theory in a very specific 'technical' way.  
>>  
>>> Giving Bernie the ability to run to Microcenter to buy a connector to keep 
>>> the servers running makes sense. Asking Bernie to speak with Person X to 
>>> ask permission to do the same makes no sense. Having Bernie submit receipts 
>>> to Person X to submit to the Conservancy makes sense.
>> 
>> I agree with all that, and would add: Having Bernie submit receipts to the 
>> Conservancy makes no sense.
>> 
>> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak with 
>> Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that Person 
>> X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry about 
>> that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it directly. 
> 
> This last statement makes no sense to me.  Bernie "does not" need to ask 
> permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"? Or is the intention to 
> *add* another person separate from any concrete goals within the organization 
> some unilateral spending privileges?  If the latter, what problem are we 
> solving?
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers
>> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 2 June 2016 at 10:17, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> I guess I don't really understand what you mean by functional vs
>> divisional in the case of SL.
>>
>
> Its about accounting more than anything else; in a divisional org, each
> division has its own "Profits and Losses" statements, but in a functional
> org, there is only one.
>
>
>> The teams are functional and are the people in the community closest to
>> the issues they are dealing with.
>>
>
> Sure!!! :) I'm not saying anything is dysfunctional; the word 'functional'
> is used in the context of org theory in a very specific 'technical' way.
>
>
>> Giving Bernie the ability to run to Microcenter to buy a connector to
>> keep the servers running makes sense. Asking Bernie to speak with Person X
>> to ask permission to do the same makes no sense. Having Bernie submit
>> receipts to Person X to submit to the Conservancy makes sense.
>>
>
> I agree with all that, and would add: Having Bernie submit receipts to the
> Conservancy makes no sense.
>
> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak
> with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that
> Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry
> about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it
> directly.
>

This last statement makes no sense to me.  Bernie "does not" need to ask
permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"? Or is the intention to
*add* another person separate from any concrete goals within the
organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If the latter, what
problem are we solving?

>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2016 at 10:17, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I guess I don't really understand what you mean by functional vs
> divisional in the case of SL.
>

Its about accounting more than anything else; in a divisional org, each
division has its own "Profits and Losses" statements, but in a functional
org, there is only one.


> The teams are functional and are the people in the community closest to
> the issues they are dealing with.
>

Sure!!! :) I'm not saying anything is dysfunctional; the word 'functional'
is used in the context of org theory in a very specific 'technical' way.


> Giving Bernie the ability to run to Microcenter to buy a connector to keep
> the servers running makes sense. Asking Bernie to speak with Person X to
> ask permission to do the same makes no sense. Having Bernie submit receipts
> to Person X to submit to the Conservancy makes sense.
>

I agree with all that, and would add: Having Bernie submit receipts to the
Conservancy makes no sense.

The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak
with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that
Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry
about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it
directly.

-- 
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] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 2 June 2016 at 09:32, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> Specifically, I asked for evidence that there was a pressing need for
>> unilateral approval of small expenditures and if so, why the existing
>> scheme of pushing that responsibility to the teams as we currently do with
>> the infrastructure team isn't a better strategy than putting that control
>> in the hands of an individual.
>>
>> I did concede the point that having one person responsible for ensuing
>> that financial transactions with the Conservancy are well form and complete
>> would likely make life for the Conservancy better and thus have no
>> objection to that aspect of the proposal.
>>
>
> It seems to me that the 2nd point answers the first; delegating small
> spends to all teams means the likelihood the transactions are not well
> formed for Conservancy increases.
>
> I also am somewhat adverse to there being 'teams' at all at this point,
> since the proactive community is so small. Why not just consider Sugar Labs
> a single team? And thus have a single Finance Manager.
>
> In 'organizational theory', Sugar has previously been somewhat a
> 'divisional organization' where there are separate groups that act more or
> less independently. This is very common, and the history of DuPont
> innovating this organizational form was for me very interesting;
> https://stratechery.com/2013/why-microsofts-reorganization-is-a-bad-idea/
> is a nice essay about all this from a few years ago when Ballmer was
> crashing the company :)
>
> "Consider General Electric, the classic example of a divisional company.
> It has twenty-five different businesses, ranging from finance to jet
> turbines."
>
>
> In a small organization without very different lines of business, this is
> not the ideal organizational form, and I think Sugar Labs is better
> organized as a 'functional organization' rather than divisional.
>

I guess I don't really understand what you mean by functional vs divisional
in the case of SL. The teams are functional and are the people in the
community closest to the issues they are dealing with. Giving Bernie the
ability to run to Microcenter to buy a connector to keep the servers
running makes sense. Asking Bernie to speak with Person X to ask permission
to do the same makes no sense. Having Bernie submit receipts to Person X to
submit to the Conservancy makes sense.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2016 at 09:32, Walter Bender  wrote:

> Specifically, I asked for evidence that there was a pressing need for
> unilateral approval of small expenditures and if so, why the existing
> scheme of pushing that responsibility to the teams as we currently do with
> the infrastructure team isn't a better strategy than putting that control
> in the hands of an individual.
>
> I did concede the point that having one person responsible for ensuing
> that financial transactions with the Conservancy are well form and complete
> would likely make life for the Conservancy better and thus have no
> objection to that aspect of the proposal.
>

It seems to me that the 2nd point answers the first; delegating small
spends to all teams means the likelihood the transactions are not well
formed for Conservancy increases.

I also am somewhat adverse to there being 'teams' at all at this point,
since the proactive community is so small. Why not just consider Sugar Labs
a single team? And thus have a single Finance Manager.

In 'organizational theory', Sugar has previously been somewhat a
'divisional organization' where there are separate groups that act more or
less independently. This is very common, and the history of DuPont
innovating this organizational form was for me very interesting;
https://stratechery.com/2013/why-microsofts-reorganization-is-a-bad-idea/
is a nice essay about all this from a few years ago when Ballmer was
crashing the company :)

"Consider General Electric, the classic example of a divisional company. It
has twenty-five different businesses, ranging from finance to jet turbines."


In a small organization without very different lines of business, this is
not the ideal organizational form, and I think Sugar Labs is better
organized as a 'functional organization' rather than divisional.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

Our next meeting is tomorrow, 3 June at 19UTC [1], in irc.freenode.net
#sugar-meeting.I presume we will have a quorum and vote on the backlog of
motions listed in the agenda [2].

As for voting any time, I was hoping to see some more discussion on the FM
position before asking for a vote. I had posed a number of
questions/comments in the draft document that Caryl had prepared that were
never answered, so personally I am somewhat at a loss as to how I will vote.

Specifically, I asked for evidence that there was a pressing need for
unilateral approval of small expenditures and if so, why the existing
scheme of pushing that responsibility to the teams as we currently do with
the infrastructure team isn't a better strategy than putting that control
in the hands of an individual.

I did concede the point that having one person responsible for ensuing that
financial transactions with the Conservancy are well form and complete
would likely make life for the Conservancy better and thus have no
objection to that aspect of the proposal.

As for the other outstanding motions, they all seem well conceived to me.

regards.

-walter

[1]
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160603T15=43=Sugar+Labs+oversight+board+meeting=cursive
[2] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes#Agenda_items

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I thought you already posted these motions 12 days ago in the thread "2
> Motions Ready (or Not)" - and I also posted my 2 motions recently.
>
> I thought motions could be passed and voted on at any time?
>
> Will the motions posted a while ago be voted on? Or did they lapse?
>
>
> On 2 June 2016 at 07:51, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Many thanks to those of you (especially Dave Crossland) who have helped
>> refine these two motions so that they are relatively simple and easy to use
>> (See attached for final versions). It is my hope that they will help
>> SugarLabs move forward in a more efficient, smooth, and transparent
>> fashion. They are designed to accomplish the following:
>>
>>
>>- Allow small expenditures without the need for SLOB action
>>- Provide compensation for the Financial Manager (FM) as deemed
>>appropriate
>>- Assure that requests for funding of projects are in order before
>>they are formally presented to SLOB
>>- Reduce the congestion at meetings with just one person, the FM,
>>presenting requests for funds to the SLOB
>>
>>
>> Those of you who have helped so much with drafting the final version of
>> these motions will notice that I have reset the amount for small requests
>> to $Y, providing the ability of the SLOB to set this amount initially and
>> adjust it as needed over time.
>>
>> I am currently in the Dallas area for our older granddaughter's high
>> school graduation which has all sorts of events all week. I will do all I
>> can to "attend" tomorrow's meeting. If I'm not there, you all (Texas speak)
>> will know why.
>>
>> Caryl
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I thought you already posted these motions 12 days ago in the thread "2
Motions Ready (or Not)" - and I also posted my 2 motions recently.

I thought motions could be passed and voted on at any time?

Will the motions posted a while ago be voted on? Or did they lapse?


On 2 June 2016 at 07:51, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> Many thanks to those of you (especially Dave Crossland) who have helped
> refine these two motions so that they are relatively simple and easy to use
> (See attached for final versions). It is my hope that they will help
> SugarLabs move forward in a more efficient, smooth, and transparent
> fashion. They are designed to accomplish the following:
>
>
>- Allow small expenditures without the need for SLOB action
>- Provide compensation for the Financial Manager (FM) as deemed
>appropriate
>- Assure that requests for funding of projects are in order before
>they are formally presented to SLOB
>- Reduce the congestion at meetings with just one person, the FM,
>presenting requests for funds to the SLOB
>
>
> Those of you who have helped so much with drafting the final version of
> these motions will notice that I have reset the amount for small requests
> to $Y, providing the ability of the SLOB to set this amount initially and
> adjust it as needed over time.
>
> I am currently in the Dallas area for our older granddaughter's high
> school graduation which has all sorts of events all week. I will do all I
> can to "attend" tomorrow's meeting. If I'm not there, you all (Texas speak)
> will know why.
>
> Caryl
>



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

Re: [IAEP] Cheap screens

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2016 at 00:35, Sam Parkinson  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Today I had to go to a shopping mall in Denver, Colorado, and I noticed
> that every item in the store had a little LCD screen attached; very low
> res, but surely very cheap to have 1,000s of them in every store.
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:2016-05-30_lcd1.jpg
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:2016-05-30_lcd2.jpg
>
> I wonder how cheap screens can be these days :)
>
> [Off topic]
>
> Are these screens LCD?  I was reading in the hackernews thread relating
> the a colour e-ink display recently that there are lots of e-ink screens
> that are built for this market.  I can't find the link unfortunately.
>
> I would be very interested if they are.  Front-lit LCDs are amazing, and I
> believe that the XO is one of the only devices to have one.  Is that true?



(replying on list with permission)

They seemed like regular LCD rather than eink to me, but if I stop by there
again I'll check them out :)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of color eink screens being developed yet.

I'm also not aware of any other laptop with a dual eink/regular screen.


On 2 June 2016 at 06:30, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Stores use those little screens to constantly manipulate and change
> prices. They make more $ while we pay more. I'm sure they pay for
> themselves very quickly.
>

hahaha yes, probably :)

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

Re: [IAEP] Cheap screens

[Caryl Bigenho]

Stores use those little screens to constantly manipulate and change prices. 
They make more $ while we pay more. I'm sure they pay for themselves very 
quickly.

Caryl 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:29 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Today I had to go to a shopping mall in Denver, Colorado, and I noticed that 
> every item in the store had a little LCD screen attached; very low res, but 
> surely very cheap to have 1,000s of them in every store. 
> 
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:2016-05-30_lcd1.jpg
> 
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:2016-05-30_lcd2.jpg
> 
> I wonder how cheap screens can be these days :) 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers
> Dave
> ___
> 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

[IAEP] Cheap screens

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

Today I had to go to a shopping mall in Denver, Colorado, and I noticed
that every item in the store had a little LCD screen attached; very low
res, but surely very cheap to have 1,000s of them in every store.

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:2016-05-30_lcd1.jpg

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:2016-05-30_lcd2.jpg

I wonder how cheap screens can be these days :)

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