Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] URGENT action needed

2017-08-12 Por tema Samson Goddy 
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

>
>
> 2017-08-11 8:54 GMT-05:00 Avni Khatri :
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Samuel Cantero 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> mind-boggling indeed. SL has been in GSoC and GCI for years. I'm not a
>>> board member but +1 for sure.
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>
>
> Hello Avni,
>
> I agree with you it should be clearly defined who in Sugar Labs is
> responsible for Google's collections.
>
> Resources in Sugar Labs are limited and historically we had lost a lot of
> opportunities because uncollected grant, please research on Trip Advisor's
> case when lack of clear responsibility for collection let to an
> unbelievable lack of collection of US$40.000 for internationalization's
> projects.
>
> Responsibility isn't clear at this point.
>
> About the Financial Manager role, it was created by the Board on July's
> decisions last year, still they never appointed anyone for the role.
>
> In the meanwhile, Adam has continue serving as the *representative for
> Sugar Labs* with the Software Freedom Conservancy since last period.
> Still, this role doesn't account for any financial responsibility according
> to current Governance
> .
>
> I'm sorry we still don't have a wiki page that would easily resolve any
> financial question to the community. It is a tendency I'm hoping to revert
> by proposing the
>
> *Motion 2017-08-10: Sugar Labs Financial Manager to have a monthly
> compensation.*
>
First i see no reason for this decision, after the comments from walter's
and i quote.

"Google has been consistently paying us for almost 10 years. The fact that
we have not yet seen the $7000 from GCI is an SFC interface issue."

Sugar Labs not receiving $7k from GCI was a problem from SFC. This
discussion is unhealthy for this motion because it serves as a distraction.

SFC don't issue travel advance, but they are willing to do so based on this
comment.
"Unfortunately, We are waiting for someone from Sugar Labs to reply to
approve the expense.  I don't know why they haven't replied."

I have been asking for travel advance for over 8 days now, after i was
chosen to attend the mentor's summit in SFO. I feel this is a problem for
later and shouldn't be discuss now due to the reasons for getting a US B-2
visa.

I see you have given "-1" for reasons i think you feel is right or should
be pointed out which is fine. But i think SL Financial Manager while this
motion is still valid is absolutely wrong.

I want SL to have an Official Financial Manager but not with this
discussion.

Regards
Samson G

>
> Regards,
> Laura V
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Laura Vargas 
 wrote:

> Walter,
>
> -1 since there are still US$7.000 from last Google's programs we
> participated still uncollected and currently we have no way of assuring we
> will collect Google's funds this time.
>

 Google has been consistently paying us for almost 10 years. The fact
 that we have not yet seen the $7000 from GCI is an SFC interface issue.

 The fact that we are about to jeopardize Samson's opportunity to
 represent SL at the GSoC summit is mind-boggling.

 -walter

>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> 2017-08-10 15:44 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> I presume we need a motion and a vote on this. Time is of the
>> essence, so please respond ASAP.
>>
>> Motion: Samson Goddy has been selected as a Sugar Labs representative
>> to the Google Summer of Code mentor summit. He has requested a travel
>> advance to cover the costs of his visa application. The advance, 
>> including
>> wire fees comes to $US 627.05. This motion is to approve the travel
>> advance. (As additional background, Google will be covering up to $2200 
>> in
>> travel expenses for two representatives to attend the summit. Since our
>> other representative is local to the SF area, the bulk of that money 
>> would
>> be available to cover Samson's travel, so the net impact on SL funds will
>> be negligible.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
>> [email protected]>
>> Date: Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:16 PM
>> Subject: URGENT request for Sugar Labs to approve of US$627.05
>> advance for Goddy for GSoC Mentor Summit (was: Is Goddy actually 
>> requesting
>> $160 ?)
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: Martin Michlmayr , Samson Goddy <
>> [email protected]>
>>
>>
>> Sugar Labs PLC,  please urgently page down to the all caps section
>> below.
>>
>> Samson,
>>
>> Samson Goddy wrote at 08:52 (EDT) on Wednesday:
>> > it has been 5 days, i already made request to
>> su...@

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] URGENT action needed

2017-08-11 Por tema Laura Vargas 
2017-08-11 9:23 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-08-11 8:54 GMT-05:00 Avni Khatri :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Samuel Cantero 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 mind-boggling indeed. SL has been in GSoC and GCI for years. I'm not a
 board member but +1 for sure.


>>> +1
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Avni,
>>
>> I agree with you it should be clearly defined who in Sugar Labs is
>> responsible for Google's collections.
>>
>> Resources in Sugar Labs are limited and historically we had lost a lot of
>> opportunities because uncollected grant, please research on Trip Advisor's
>> case when lack of clear responsibility for collection let to an
>> unbelievable lack of collection of US$40.000 for internationalization's
>> projects.
>>
>> Responsibility isn't clear at this point.
>>
>> About the Financial Manager role, it was created by the Board on July's
>> decisions last year, still they never appointed anyone for the role.
>>
>> In the meanwhile, Adam has continue serving as the *representative for
>> Sugar Labs* with the Software Freedom Conservancy since last period.
>> Still, this role doesn't account for any financial responsibility according
>> to current Governance
>> .
>>
>> I'm sorry we still don't have a wiki page that would easily resolve any
>> financial question to the community. It is a tendency I'm hoping to revert
>> by proposing the
>>
>> *Motion 2017-08-10: Sugar Labs Financial Manager to have a monthly
>> compensation.*
>>
> First i see no reason for this decision, after the comments from walter's
> and i quote.
>
> "Google has been consistently paying us for almost 10 years. The fact that
> we have not yet seen the $7000 from GCI is an SFC interface issue."
>
> Sugar Labs not receiving $7k from GCI was a problem from SFC. This
> discussion is unhealthy for this motion because it serves as a distraction.
>


Samson,

On the contrary I would have no problem to vote +1 on this motion if we had
already a clearly defined and fairly compensated Financial Manager
responsible for the numbers (this includes tracking collections and
payments) on our quarterly reports.

I hope the best for you.


Regards,


-- 
Laura V.
* I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ Laura Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
Lista olpc-Sur
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur