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

[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
account...@sfconservancy.org :

- 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 account...@sfconservancy.org 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
> proj...@sfconservancy.org 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
>
> 

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

[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
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

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

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

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

[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 <
>>> account...@sfconservancy.org>
>>> 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: su...@sfconservancy.org
>>> Cc: Martin Michlmayr , Samson Goddy <
>>> samsongo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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...@sfconservancy.org
>>> 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 

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

[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 <
>> account...@sfconservancy.org>
>> 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: su...@sfconservancy.org
>> Cc: Martin Michlmayr , Samson Goddy <
>> samsongo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> 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...@sfconservancy.org
>> 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!)
>> i...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

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

[Sameer Verma]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>
> 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.

The two motions are separate. Let's keep those that way.

Sameer

>
> I hope the best for you.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ Laura Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

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

[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 SomosAZUCAR.Org*

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

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

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

[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 <
>> account...@sfconservancy.org>
>> 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: su...@sfconservancy.org
>> Cc: Martin Michlmayr , Samson Goddy <
>> samsongo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> Sugar Labs PLC,  please urgently page down to the all caps