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

El 20/06/16 a las 23:42, Claudia Urrea escribió: > I thought we have solved the issue, but it doesn't seem to be the case. No, you need to unsubscribe claudia@laptop and subscribe your new address for it to get fixed. When subscribers change their email addresses, usually they do this

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

On 21 June 2016 at 00:38, Sebastian Silva wrote: > Then it got rejected because she is subscribed with a different address. Ah yes, I identified this problem with Claudia's email before. Since you are an IAEP list admin, please can you just fix it? :)

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

Then it got rejected because she is subscribed with a different address. El 20/06/16 a las 23:41, Dave Crossland escribió: > On 21 June 2016 at 00:32, Sebastian Silva wrote: >> We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future please >> remember to

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

On 21 June 2016 at 00:32, Sebastian Silva wrote: > We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future please > remember to copy the list in your replies as we are very much interested in > your opinions. The mail from Claudia was sent to the lists:

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

Hi Claudia! Welcome to writing in Sugar Labs's lists. Please note replies are not "to all" by default (much like regular email). We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future please remember to copy the list in your replies as we are very much interested in your opinions.

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

Hi Claudia! On 20 June 2016 at 14:04, Claudia Urrea wrote: > > I think the wiki page summarizes the status of the motions, but we have to > find a way to link to the discussion or process. Should we number them? or > code them in a way that it helps the process? The

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

Hi Claudia! On 19 June 2016 at 13:38, Claudia Urrea wrote: > > I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass, > pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend > on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.

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

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