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

[Sameer Verma]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Laura Vargas <laura en somosazucar.org> wrote:
>
>
> 2017-08-11 9:23 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy <samsongoddy en gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Laura Vargas <laura en somosazucar.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-08-11 8:54 GMT-05:00 Avni Khatri <avni en kidsoncomputers.org>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Samuel Cantero <scanterog en gmail.com>
>>>> 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&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ Laura Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel en lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>