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

2016-05-18 Thread Sean DALY
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > Done. Wow! bravo Walter that was quick!! Sean ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

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

2016-05-18 Thread Walter Bender
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY wrote: > >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >>> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any

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

2016-05-18 Thread Walter Bender
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Sean DALY wrote: > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly >> SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs. > > > > ah I was

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

2016-05-18 Thread Sean DALY
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Fortunately, SLOBs votes are done via email, at any time, and the monthly > SLOBs meetings are there to unjam any backlogs. ah I was under the impression that motions were debated and voted in the meetings, with recourse

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

2016-05-18 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi On 18 May 2016 at 11:53, Sean DALY wrote: > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal >> financial responsibility for the Conservancy account. > > > In my view it's

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

2016-05-18 Thread Sean DALY
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal > financial responsibility for the Conservancy account. In my view it's theoretically reasonable, however there is a real risk of red tape logjam. It's

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

2016-05-18 Thread Dave Crossland
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