Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] (1) travel advances and (2) external programs

[Sebastian Silva]

Hi Walter,

To your questions, the following ones are already resolved:

> * To what extent should the community be engaged?
> * What are the requirements for communication with the oversight
board? With the community?
> * Are there restrictions on how funds will be used (above and beyond
the ones imposed by the SFC)?
> * Will the project administrator have to get SLOB approval for
spending those funds? For each expenditure or just the overall budget?
> * Is there any expectation of financial reporting?

Please review (again) the following principles (pasted after my message)
which are *the main reason *I joined Sugar Labs, copied from the main
wiki page  that describes
Sugar Labs.

They are very clear with regard to what the expectations are for
*everyone *here. It is not just expected that we /report /when working
in the name of Sugar Labs/. /It is expected that we /work *in plain
view*./ It is expected that we don't have private communications unless
we absolutely must. It also sets the expectation that goods belonging to
Sugar Labs are properly accounted for and up to date.

Unless you disagree with our organizational principles, it would seem
like a distraction of everyone's time to raise the questions above.

Regards,

Sebastian


  https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs


  Principles

In order for Sugar to be successful, it needs the participation of a
large number of people who share common goals while maintaining
independence, so that each participant has the ability to act
independently. For these reasons, Sugar Labs subscribes to the
principles described here
,
which are the author's own translation of an original text in Spanish.



Identity

  * Clear mission – Fully disclosed objectives.
  * Declared commitments – Affinities and aversions explained.
  * Declared outside connections – Relationships with other
organizations explicitly listed.


Structure

  * Horizontal organization – Teams and facilitators work on
responsibilities and agreements.
  * Identified contributors – Who is who, people are reachable.
  * Clear responsibilities – Who is in charge of what.
  * Activities described – All of the ongoing work is acknowledged.

See Wiki Structure
 for a
guide to how the wiki models Sugar Labs' structure.


Operation

  * Open participation – Anybody can access the information and get a
first responsibility.
  * Meritocracy – Responsibilities are acquired (or lost) based on one's
skills, results, and contributors’ support.
  * Voluntary (non-)engagement – Nobody is forced to be involved or to
keep responsibilities.


Information

  * Regular reports – Reported activities and future plans allow
monitoring and participation.
  * Information accessible – Even internal operational information is
available by default.

We try to operate /*en plein air

*/.

  * Explicit confidentiality – It is explained what matters are
confidential, why, and who can access them.


Goods

  * Economic model – Feasibility and sustainability plans are exposed.
(Please see/contribute to the discussion here
.)
  * Resources – Inventory of items detailing who contributed what and why.
  * Public accounts – It’s clear where the money comes from and where it
goes.
  * A special thanks
 to our
contributors.



On 18/09/17 14:57, Walter Bender wrote:
> My apologies in advance for the length of this email. The lists have
> been overwhelmed of late with discussions of procedure and as a
> consequence, it feels as if technical and pedagogical discussions have
> seemingly been marginalized.
>
> ---
>
> I. TRAVEL ADVANCES
>
> We had two topics of discussion we were going to consider between the
> monthly meetings of the Sugar Labs oversight board, both of which
> seemed to have stalled out.
>
> The first topic was in regards to the process and conditions under
> which we would consider travel advances. I raise this issue now
> because it impacts Samson, who needs to prepare his trip to Google
> well in advance of our next meeting.
>
> Laura stated the obvious in her wiki post, essentially: (1) ask the
> oversight board and (2) if approved, the oversight board would ask the
> SFC [1]. But this formulation doesn't offer much guidance. What are
> the criteria for the decision? I had written up some details in the
> wiki -- which were subsequently deleted -- to try to address what I
> think are the questions someone would reasonably be asking of us.
>
>
>
> (0) Before askin

[IAEP] [SLOB] (1) travel advances and (2) external programs

[Walter Bender]

My apologies in advance for the length of this email. The lists have been
overwhelmed of late with discussions of procedure and as a consequence, it
feels as if technical and pedagogical discussions have seemingly been
marginalized.

---

I. TRAVEL ADVANCES

We had two topics of discussion we were going to consider between the
monthly meetings of the Sugar Labs oversight board, both of which seemed to
have stalled out.

The first topic was in regards to the process and conditions under which we
would consider travel advances. I raise this issue now because it impacts
Samson, who needs to prepare his trip to Google well in advance of our next
meeting.

Laura stated the obvious in her wiki post, essentially: (1) ask the
oversight board and (2) if approved, the oversight board would ask the SFC
[1]. But this formulation doesn't offer much guidance. What are the
criteria for the decision? I had written up some details in the wiki --
which were subsequently deleted -- to try to address what I think are the
questions someone would reasonably be asking of us.



(0) Before asking for a travel advance, please consider the following
questions:

* Is the travel on behalf of Sugar Labs?
* Has the trip been approved by the Sugar Labs oversight board or some
designated representative of the board?
* Do the travel plans comply with the SFC travel policy? [2]
* Do you need to have a ticket purchased on your behalf?
* Do you need cash for local travel and/or per diem expenses?

(1) Anyone traveling on behalf of Sugar Labs may request a travel advance
by sending a written request to the oversight board . Be sure to include the reason for your request, the
amount requested, the anticipated dates of travel, and answers to the
questions above.

(2) The oversight board will discuss the request and may ask for
clarification. The criteria for approval include:

* availability of funds
* ???

It may take the board ''up to one week'' to reach its decision, so please
make your request as far in advance as possible.

The deliberations of the board will either be published on a  public email
list [3] or in a meeting log [4]. The decision itself will be documented on
[5].

(3) If the travel advance is approved (by at least four board members) then
our liaison with the SFC will communicate the decision on behalf of the
applicant. Note that approval by the SL oversight board does not guarantee
that the SFC will approve the travel advance. (Past experience suggests
that they are more likely to approve the prepurchase of a ticket than a
cash advance.) The time-frame for the SFC varies widely and is outside of
our control, so again, it is recommended that you make your request well in
advance.



I think it is imperative that the oversight board define criteria for
determining whether or not a travel advance be considered. For example, we
have been inconsistent in regard to travel advances where a visa is
required. We made no contingency on Ignacio's request for a travel advance
to attend the Google Code-in (GCI) summit, where as we turned down Samson's
request for an advance to get a visa to attend the Google Summer of Code
(GSoC) summit. I would ask for more clarification as to if and when we
consider an advance for the visa expenses to be acceptable.

Also, if a group or team (e.g. the GSoC mentors) decides to send someone to
a workshop or meeting and has the cash in hand (Google funding in this
case), are there further criteria that the oversight board need consider?
If so what?

---

II. EXTERNAL PROGRAMS

The second topic of discussion is in regards to the process and guidelines
by which community members engage in external activities on behalf of Sugar
Labs. The case in point is GCI. We have been participating in GCI for for
the past five years (since 2012) and every year, I have asked the board for
permission to participate. But once granted that permission, I have taken
it upon myself to organize our application, recruit mentors, solicit
projects, and administer the program. I've engaged the community along the
way, holding public meeting and utilizing the wiki extensively. I think
this has worked out well. I was prepared to proceed along the same lines
again this year, but given the heated climate on the board regarding
process, I thought we should clarify our guidelines first [6].

I raise this topic now as we will need a head start on our GCI application
before the next scheduled meeting.

As per above, what are the expectations for someone who wants to organize a
project on behalf of Sugar Labs?



(0) Before asking for permission to engage in an external activity on
behalf of Sugar Labs, please consider the following questions:

* To what extent does the project have to align with the Sugar Labs mission?
* Is the project Free/Libre?
* Will the project be self-funding or does it require funding from Sugar
Labs?
* What are your qualifications for administering the program?
* What involvement from the community is required to ma