Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

Hi Dave, the $2390 sum is for the following marketing/promotion/PR expense: eReleases CauseWire 10-pack Invoice #011413122 This was authorized by a SLOBs vote in late 2012. Prior to the pack, I was funding press releases on pay-as-you-go out of my pocket, and I wasn't able to continue that any

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

Hi all, as much as I appreciate efforts to be completely transparent on those issues, would you mind having the discussion on a single mailing list? Receiving those emails twice is a bit stressful. Thanks! And a big hugs to all paid or unpaid Sugar/OLPC *volunteers* <3 -- Bastien

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

Hi Laura! Thanks for the spreadsheet - this is great! On 10 April 2016 at 23:57, Laura Vargas wrote: > According to the published numbers (I'm attaching a Spreadsheet with the > information published by you) for the last 4 years, ~80% (USD$26,400) of > expenses are

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Laura Vargas wrote: > > Adam, > > Am not sure how the Conservancy can help us get better if we don't have > our financial policies well defined. > > According to the published numbers (I'm attaching a Spreadsheet with the > information

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

Adam, Am not sure how the Conservancy can help us get better if we don't have our financial policies well defined. According to the published numbers (I'm attaching a Spreadsheet with the information published by you) for the last 4 years, ~80% (USD$26,400) of expenses are related to promotional

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Adam Holt wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> >> On 9 April 2016 at 11:26, Caryl Bigenho wrote: >> >>> I also agree that $500 does seem excessive, and even inappropriate >>

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 9 April 2016 at 11:26, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > >> I also agree that $500 does seem excessive, and even inappropriate > > > FWIW, I thought it was small; it is under minimum wage for some places. >

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

On 9 April 2016 at 11:26, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > I also agree that $500 does seem excessive, and even inappropriate FWIW, I thought it was small; it is under minimum wage for some places. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

Hi Folks, Laura raises an appropriate question. However, since these expenses were incurred in the past, working under past policies, it seems only fair to reimburse them. However, going forward in the future, if the two motions I propose for a Financial Manager (changed from Treasurer to meet

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Action needed on two issues

According to this logic, (a) Can any volunteer request retroactive funds / get reimbursed after giving related workshops? I understand now that Walter and Chris have total control over the Trip Advisor grant, still there are ~US$20,000 on SL accounts that could benefit many volunteers in this