Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-15 Por tema Karen Sandler 

On 2017-08-15 00:51, Adam Holt wrote:
Thanks Karen for please responding to these 3 emails I sent you when 
possible:


- July 12 subject line "Donation from Facebook" [paperwork required so
donations can flow to Sugar Labs]
- Aug 4 subject line "Donation from Facebook" [paperwork required so
donations can flow to Sugar Labs]
- Aug 9 subject line "Samson Goddy asks for visa supporting docs for
GSoC visit to USA" [so that his visa is less likely to be denied, as
happened around mid-June with the French Embassy]


Great, thanks for pointing these out! I've been on the road for most of 
the time since I last wrote you on the 11th and have a significant 
backlog (it's conference season, and I'm off again on Thursday). I've 
picked up those email threads. As always feel free to ping me on IRC or 
call me by phone if something is urgent. Generally, questions about 
legal matters like visas should go to Tony Sebro, so I looped him in.


If possible, a response would also be appreciated to this email sent
to [email protected] :

- Aug 4 subject line "ACTION REQUIRED: GCI Grand Prize Trip and Org
Donations - Sugar Labs" [how do we work together to recover $9400
promised by Google to [email protected] on April 14?]


OK, I'll ping accounting@ on this.


Separately it would be extremely helpful if SFConservancy can clarify
all accounts that today continue have access to Sugar Labs'
financials, and whether it would (presumably) be very wise to
deprecate several ancient such accounts known to be created in
2008-to-2015.


I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean removing access 
for people who were granted access in the past? We can do that too if 
appropriate. Or do you mean old accounts in the accounting system? 
Perhaps let's pick this up on a private list with accounting@?



Additionally can SFConservancy assist providing svn credentials to any
person(s) that the Sugar Labs Oversight Board chooses to be
trustworthy enough have live ongoing & historical access to Sugar
Labs' financial records.  I'd personally motion for Laura Vargas to
have such access, and hope that other SLOBS members could confirm such
in a vote during the coming week, so that SFConservancy can then
proceed if Laura Vargas is indeed dedicating herself to this intensive
task.


Yes, that's fine. We generally give access to any project leadership 
committee member who asks for it.



PS if other Board members also require detailed financial access to
all records since 2008 (now or in future) and are fully willing to
stand up to all associated responsibilities (including spending
extensive time learning the "ledger" command and protecting privacy of
all) then please make that known.

Finally thank you to Karen Sandler for pointing out that Sugar Labs
Election/Membership Committee could probably do substantially better
communicating election candidates & results @
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2016-2017-candidates [3]


That link doesn't seem to work.


(or similar) as was done in all prior years:


The previous year seems to have the candidates but not the results. It's 
fine (you can keep whatever wiki pages you want) but I've already been 
digging for 10 minutes and other than the list of current members on the 
main Oversight Board page, I don't see election result tallies that 
correspond to the previous candidate page. It's very possible I'm just 
missing it, but the point is that we really need to be informed by email 
when the reps change, as the FSA agreement contemplates.


karen



https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2015-2016-candidates [4]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2014-2015-candidates [5]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2013-2014-candidates [6]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2012-2013-candidates [7]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2011-2012-candidates [8]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010-2011-candidates [9]
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009-2010-candidates [10]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Karen Sandler 
 wrote:


Hi SLOBs,

Conservancy staff doesn't follow our member projects mailing lists - 
the [email protected] are always the official communication 
point between Conservancy and its member projects. As I hope you can 
appreciate, we have 45 member projects (including Outreachy, which has 
around 80 internships per year that we administer). This thread has 
come to our attention though, and I want to clear up a few things.


* Good communication with Conservancy

We rely on SLOBs and the official Sugar representative to let us know 
when you approve some action and need us to do something. For example, 
no one notified us of the election results earlier in this year. In 
researching the issues that came up today, we discovered that the 
election happened, and we will update our records under the Fiscal 
Sponsorship Agreement (and the sugar@ alias) accordingly. W

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-15 Por tema Karen Sandler 

[resent from my old address that is subscribed to this list]

Hi SLOBs,

Conservancy staff doesn't follow our member projects mailing lists - the 
[email protected] are always the official communication point 
between Conservancy and its member projects. As I hope you can 
appreciate, we have 45 member projects (including Outreachy, which has 
around 80 internships per year that we administer). This thread has come 
to our attention though, and I want to clear up a few things.


* Good communication with Conservancy

We rely on SLOBs and the official Sugar representative to let us know 
when you approve some action and need us to do something. For example, 
no one notified us of the election results earlier in this year. In 
researching the issues that came up today, we discovered that the 
election happened, and we will update our records under the Fiscal 
Sponsorship Agreement (and the sugar@ alias) accordingly. We don't 
object to hiring someone to communicate with us or to rely on 
volunteers. If you do hire someone, we will rely on volunteers to let us 
know that the paid representative should be paid and that we can rely on 
their instructions (and then again if you decide not to have that person 
work for you anymore). We expect to communicate directly with the sugar@ 
alias and we cannot be expected to closely read mailing lists dedicated 
to other matters in case there is something mentioned that is relevant 
to us. We operate on a shoestring budget and have a staff of only 4 full 
time people.


* Books and records

As you know, we make our books available to Sugar on an ongoing basis, 
allowing you to generate your own reports. Until our accounts are closed 
for the year (and audited), there's a chance that transactions may not 
have been fully entered. Google recently switched payment methods for 
GCI and GSoC, and we haven't adjusted the bookkeeping on that yet, so it 
is lagging a bit. Google is regularly invoiced for all the GSoC and GCI 
funds for all projects, and we don't think there's any concern about 
payment from Google being uncertain. Google has never failed to pay 
Conservancy funds owed for our member projects.


As we've mention before, if there is an item missing in the ledger that 
you want us to expedite checking on, just ask us.


* Transparency

I believe Conservancy has historically been the most transparent fiscal 
sponsor in free software, and we strive to stay that way. We are very 
open to concrete suggestions about how we can be more transparent about 
our operations (and I hope we are far from opaque)! All of our policies 
are public as are all of our filings. We make the books and records 
available to authorized project participants and strive to answer 
questions as quickly as we can[1]. We are always on IRC at #conservancy 
on freenode if you need to reach us urgently and are happy to be pinged.


* Flexibility

We will attempt to work with you to accomplish whatever Sugar Labs wants 
to do that is within our charitable mission to the extent that our 
resources allow. As Bradley already wrote to the sugar@ list, we can 
work with reimbursing 3rd parties or handle other unusual payment 
mechanisms if we understand that is the best or only way to accomplish 
the project's goals.


I hope this is helpful. I know it's a tumultuous time for Sugar Labs, 
and I want you to make sure that we're all on the same page about how 
Conservancy operates so that we can best support the project.


karen

[1] Adam, I know that you have an email into me. I was on the road at 
DebConf last week and should catch up in the next day or two.


___
Lista olpc-Sur
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-15 Por tema Karen Sandler 


Hi SLOBs,

Conservancy staff doesn't follow our member projects mailing lists - the 
[email protected] are always the official communication point 
between Conservancy and its member projects. As I hope you can 
appreciate, we have 45 member projects (including Outreachy, which has 
around 80 internships per year that we administer). This thread has come 
to our attention though, and I want to clear up a few things.


* Good communication with Conservancy

We rely on SLOBs and the official Sugar representative to let us know 
when you approve some action and need us to do something. For example, 
no one notified us of the election results earlier in this year. In 
researching the issues that came up today, we discovered that the 
election happened, and we will update our records under the Fiscal 
Sponsorship Agreement (and the sugar@ alias) accordingly. We don't 
object to hiring someone to communicate with us or to rely on 
volunteers. If you do hire someone, we will rely on volunteers to let us 
know that the paid representative should be paid and that we can rely on 
their instructions (and then again if you decide not to have that person 
work for you anymore). We expect to communicate directly with the sugar@ 
alias and we cannot be expected to closely read mailing lists dedicated 
to other matters in case there is something mentioned that is relevant 
to us. We operate on a shoestring budget and have a staff of only 4 full 
time people.


* Books and records

As you know, we make our books available to Sugar on an ongoing basis, 
allowing you to generate your own reports. Until our accounts are closed 
for the year (and audited), there's a chance that transactions may not 
have been fully entered. Google recently switched payment methods for 
GCI and GSoC, and we haven't adjusted the bookkeeping on that yet, so it 
is lagging a bit. Google is regularly invoiced for all the GSoC and GCI 
funds for all projects, and we don't think there's any concern about 
payment from Google being uncertain. Google has never failed to pay 
Conservancy funds owed for our member projects.


As we've mention before, if there is an item missing in the ledger that 
you want us to expedite checking on, just ask us.


* Transparency

I believe Conservancy has historically been the most transparent fiscal 
sponsor in free software, and we strive to stay that way. We are very 
open to concrete suggestions about how we can be more transparent about 
our operations (and I hope we are far from opaque)! All of our policies 
are public as are all of our filings. We make the books and records 
available to authorized project participants and strive to answer 
questions as quickly as we can[1]. We are always on IRC at #conservancy 
on freenode if you need to reach us urgently and are happy to be pinged.


* Flexibility

We will attempt to work with you to accomplish whatever Sugar Labs wants 
to do that is within our charitable mission to the extent that our 
resources allow. As Bradley already wrote to the sugar@ list, we can 
work with reimbursing 3rd parties or handle other unusual payment 
mechanisms if we understand that is the best or only way to accomplish 
the project's goals.


I hope this is helpful. I know it's a tumultuous time for Sugar Labs, 
and I want you to make sure that we're all on the same page about how 
Conservancy operates so that we can best support the project.


karen

[1] Adam, I know that you have an email into me. I was on the road at 
DebConf last week and should catch up in the next day or two.

___
Lista olpc-Sur
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-14 Por tema Adam Holt 
Thanks Karen for please responding to these 3 emails I sent you when
possible:

- July 12 subject line "Donation from Facebook" [paperwork required so
donations can flow to Sugar Labs]
- Aug 4 subject line "Donation from Facebook" [paperwork required so
donations can flow to Sugar Labs]
- Aug 9 subject line "Samson Goddy asks for visa supporting docs for GSoC
visit to USA" [so that his visa is less likely to be denied, as happened
around mid-June with the French Embassy]

If possible, a response would also be appreciated to this email sent to
[email protected] :

- Aug 4 subject line "ACTION REQUIRED: GCI Grand Prize Trip and Org
Donations - Sugar Labs" [how do we work together to recover $9400 promised
by Google to [email protected] on April 14?]

Separately it would be extremely helpful if SFConservancy can clarify all
accounts that today continue have access to Sugar Labs' financials, and
whether it would (presumably) be very wise to deprecate several ancient
such accounts known to be created in 2008-to-2015.

Additionally can SFConservancy assist providing svn credentials to any
person(s) that the Sugar Labs Oversight Board chooses to be trustworthy
enough have live ongoing & historical access to Sugar Labs' financial
records.  I'd personally motion for Laura Vargas to have such access, and
hope that other SLOBS members could confirm such in a vote during the
coming week, so that SFConservancy can then proceed if Laura Vargas is
indeed dedicating herself to this intensive task.

PS if other Board members also require detailed financial access to all
records since 2008 (now or in future) and are fully willing to stand up to
all associated responsibilities (including spending extensive time learning
the "ledger" command and protecting privacy of all) then please make that
known.

Finally thank you to Karen Sandler for pointing out that Sugar Labs
Election/Membership Committee could probably do substantially better
communicating election candidates & results @
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2016-2017-candidates (or
similar) as was done in all prior years:

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2015-2016-candidates
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2014-2015-candidates
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2013-2014-candidates
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2012-2013-candidates
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2011-2012-candidates
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010-2011-candidates
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009-2010-candidates


On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Karen Sandler 
wrote:

>
> Hi SLOBs,
>
> Conservancy staff doesn't follow our member projects mailing lists - the
> [email protected] are always the official communication point
> between Conservancy and its member projects. As I hope you can appreciate,
> we have 45 member projects (including Outreachy, which has around 80
> internships per year that we administer). This thread has come to our
> attention though, and I want to clear up a few things.
>
> * Good communication with Conservancy
>
> We rely on SLOBs and the official Sugar representative to let us know when
> you approve some action and need us to do something. For example, no one
> notified us of the election results earlier in this year. In researching
> the issues that came up today, we discovered that the election happened,
> and we will update our records under the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement (and
> the sugar@ alias) accordingly. We don't object to hiring someone to
> communicate with us or to rely on volunteers. If you do hire someone, we
> will rely on volunteers to let us know that the paid representative should
> be paid and that we can rely on their instructions (and then again if you
> decide not to have that person work for you anymore). We expect to
> communicate directly with the sugar@ alias and we cannot be expected to
> closely read mailing lists dedicated to other matters in case there is
> something mentioned that is relevant to us. We operate on a shoestring
> budget and have a staff of only 4 full time people.
>
> * Books and records
>
> As you know, we make our books available to Sugar on an ongoing basis,
> allowing you to generate your own reports. Until our accounts are closed
> for the year (and audited), there's a chance that transactions may not have
> been fully entered. Google recently switched payment methods for GCI and
> GSoC, and we haven't adjusted the bookkeeping on that yet, so it is lagging
> a bit. Google is regularly invoiced for all the GSoC and GCI funds for all
> projects, and we don't think there's any concern about payment from Google
> being uncertain. Google has never failed to pay Conservancy funds owed for
> our member projects.
>
> As we've mention before, if there is an item missing in the ledger that
> you want us to expedite checking on, just ask us.
>
> * Transparency
>
> I believe Conservancy has

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-14 Por tema Laura Vargas 
Hi Hilary,

Sugar Labs is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy, and so
travel funding is subject to the *Software Freedom Conservancy Travel and
Reimbursable Expense Policy.
*

You can access the policy also via Sugar Labs Wiki Finance page at:

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


Regards and blessings,

Laura V

2017-08-13 17:43 GMT-05:00 Hilary Naylor :

> dear all,
>Samson is now sponsored for the up-front expenses of his trip to GSoC
> in the amount of $700. His actual expenses are closer to $900 if anyone
> wants to co-sponsor. I understand that SFC is going to reimburse me around
> $630 because that is the amount they allocated for local travel expenses.
>
> kind regards,
> Hilary
> ---
> Hilary Naylor
> OLPC-SF
>
> ---fwd---
> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:10:50 -0400
> From: Adam Holt 
> To: Lionel Laske 
> Cc: iaep ,  Sugar-dev Devel
> ,  "OLPC para usuarios, docentes,
> voluntarios y administradores" , SLOBs
> , Tabitha Roder  >
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] URGENT action needed
>
> Because Samson Goddy is our close friend and clearly should go to San
> Francisco for GSoC, it is tempting to send him a personal loan.
>
> But for Sugar Labs to provide loans to our personal friends is a dangerous
> precedent frought with moral and ethical hazards.
>
> As such, personally my conscience forces me to abstain from all such
> matters.
>
> I strongly encourage others to provide Samson the $627.05 personal loan he
> in fact does need, if Sugar Labs cannot.
>
> *It will make a gigantic difference, and you will have a friend for life in
> Samson Goddy, who is likely to move forward accomplishing truly incredible
> things in his life.*
> ---
> Hilary Naylor, Ph.D.
> www.a2zed.us
> Oakland CA
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
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

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-13 Por tema Lionel Laské 
Because Adam is our Financial contact, I would like to hear from him before
voting.
In the meantime my vote could be considering as "Abstain".

 Lionel.


2017-08-12 15:27 GMT-07:00 Tabitha Roder :

> I think Sugar Labs should approve the $US 627.05 travel advance for
> Samson Goddy.
> Tabitha
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2017 8:44 AM, "Walter Bender"  wrote:
>
>> 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 [email protected]
>> for
>> > funding. Since it takes up to 15 working days(3 weeks) for the embassy
>> to
>> > accept appointment for interview.
>> >
>> > I haven't heard anything from both parties.
>>
>> Unfortunately, We are waiting for someone from Sugar Labs to reply to
>> approve the expense.  I don't know why they haven't replied.
>>
>> SUGAR LABS PLC: By my calculation, Samson is asking for this:
>>
>>   FOR TRAVEL TO GET A VISA, AND FOR THE VISA FEES ITSELF, SAMSON GODDY
>> ASKS
>>   FOR A CASH ADVANCE OF TRAVEL EXPENSES (TO COME TO GSOC MENTOR SUMMIT
>>   2017).  The totals are as follows:
>>
>>   If we use western union, N202,350 = $570 (rate set by WU)
>>
>>   If we use wire, he's asking for 561+(561*.05)+13+25 = US$627.05 to be
>> wired.
>>wire fees
>>
>> If Sugar Labs PLC replies with approval before Sunday night US/Eastern, we
>> can likely process a payment by wire on Monday.
>>
>>
>> We don't typically use Western Union, and it would be substantial effort
>> for
>> us to do that, so we'd like Sugar to approve the additional wire fees as
>> it will make payment more rapid for Samson and easier for Conservancy.
>>
>> Samson, your request was a bit ramble-y, so if I gleaned the wrong totals
>> above, please correct them.
>>
>> Samson, in preparation for Sugar Labs PLC hopefully approving this
>> request,
>> could you let me know if the wire instructions I used for you before are
>> still correct, and if not, send me new ones?
>>
>> --
>> Bradley M. Kuhn
>> Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
>>  |--> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper for the moment
>> Pls support Conservancy!: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
Lista olpc-Sur
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur

Re: [Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] URGENT action needed

2017-08-13 Por tema Walter Bender 
Really???

I have to agree with Samson here. What is the existential risk here? How
does the risk of a travel advance to a well established community member
(and oversight board member) for a trip sponsored by a reliable funding
source with whom we have been working for years represent some "dangerous
precedent"? Regarding your suggestion that we loan the money as
individuals, the fact that I out almost $2K for money I have loaned to
community members for travel advances makes me much more wary of that
approach. It seemingly introduces an additional layer of confusion that
makes travel reimbursement all the more mired within the opaque operations
of our parent org.

-walter

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Samson Goddy  wrote:

> Thank you Adam for the wonderful reply.
>
> On Aug 13, 2017 2:10 PM, "Adam Holt"  wrote:
>
> Because Samson Goddy is our close friend and clearly should go to San
> Francisco for GSoC, it is tempting to send him a personal loan.
>
> But for Sugar Labs to provide loans to our personal friends is a dangerous
> precedent frought with moral and ethical hazards.
>
> As such, personally my conscience forces me to abstain from all such
> matters.
>
> A quick question.. I am trying to undertsand some comments on this motion.
>
> I believe this is not the first time Google is giving money to Sugar Labs
> and i am pretty sure i am not the first person from Sugar Labs to attend
> GSOC summit.
>
> Why is this an issue, for SL to approve so SFC can give me travel advance?
>
> Dont Google pay for the travels?
>
> Why i am asking these questions is because i haven't seen such  comments
> on previous travels and i certainly dont understand why it is happening
> now, at least eating up time when i should be scheduling for interview with
> the US embassy.
>
>
>
> I strongly encourage others to provide Samson the $627.05 personal loan
> he in fact does need, if Sugar Labs cannot.
>
> *It will make a gigantic difference, and you will have a friend for life
> in Samson Goddy, who is likely to move forward accomplishing truly
> incredible things in his life.*
>
> Thanks for this note.
>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2017 2:54 AM, "Lionel Laské"  wrote:
>
>
> Because Adam is our Financial contact, I would like to hear from him
> before voting.
> In the meantime my vote could be considering as "Abstain".
>
>  Lionel.
>
>
> 2017-08-12 15:27 GMT-07:00 Tabitha Roder :
>
>> I think Sugar Labs should approve the $US 627.05 travel advance for
>> Samson Goddy.
>> Tabitha
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2017 8:44 AM, "Walter Bender"  wrote:
>>
>>> 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 [email protected]
>>> for
>>> > funding. Since it takes up to 15 working days(3 weeks) for the embassy
>>> to
>>> > accept appointment for interview.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't heard anything from both parties.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, We are waiting for someone from Sugar Labs to reply to
>>> approve the expense.  I don't know why they haven't replied.
>>>
>>> SUGAR LABS PLC: By my calculation, Samson is asking for this:
>>>
>>>   FOR TRAVEL TO GET A VISA, AND FOR THE VISA FEES ITSELF, SAMSON GODDY
>>> ASKS
>>>   FOR A CASH ADVANCE OF TRAVEL EXPENSES (TO COME TO GSOC MENTOR SUMMIT
>>>   2017).  The totals are as follows:
>>>
>>>   If we use western union, N202,350 = $570 (rate set by WU)
>>>
>>>   If we use wire, he's asking for 561+(561*.05)+13+25 = US$627.05 to be
>>> wired.
>>>wire fees
>>>
>>> If Sugar Labs PLC replies with approval before Sunday night US/Eastern,
>>> we
>>> can likely process a payment by wire on Monday.
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't typically