[LGM] Request For Comments - reorganizing financial tasks for LGM

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

Thank you Pippin for your latest email, I agree, let's re-focus on the
A-B-C questions that were raised at the LGM16 face-to-face which Nate has
kindly written up and posted so as not to exclude people like me and Louis
who did not attend that session.

On 20 May 2016 at 06:59, Femke Snelting <snelting at collectifs.net> wrote:

> Thank you for your precise proposal Nate, apologies for almost missing the
> 20 May deadline for comments:
>
> A. Should we try to make a change in the way LGM currently fiscally
>> operates?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> After 11 years of LGM (!!) I think it is time to think ahead and develop a
> more sustainable way to do fundraising, reimbursement and financial
> planning for the meetings to come. This is relatively urgent with Brazil
> 2017 coming up, but it is also an occasion to gain transparency and
> stability as a project that is apparently here to stay.
>
> Louis has been taking on the responsibility for finances from the
> beginning (2006). Out of principle and care for the longevity of LGM, I
> think we need to share the responsibility. It would be better if there was
> more than one person with access to the LGM account and subsequently more
> than one person with detailed insight in our finances. Working with an
> umbrella organisation seems a constructive way to evolve out of this
> situation.
>
> I think that the proposed change in the way LGM currently operates will
> increase transparency and stability. This will have positive effects on the
> way we can internally organise, and on our relations to the world around
> it. It will hopefully allow us to do better planning (including eventually
> changing the way reimbursements work) and fundraising (developing long term
> strategies for fundraising). It will not take away the labor, but it will
> potentially make the labor more effective, and easier to distribute.


With the deadline now passed, it seems quite clear that the answer to (A)
is yes: That was the position of the LGM16 in person discussion, and in the
last couple weeks the other 2 people besides Femke to address (A) - Louis
and myself - have stated their position as approving making such a change.

Louis wrote a lot, but I can see nothing where he opposes making such a
change; he and I both asked if this was really the most important thing,
but Nate and Femke's emails have explained why there is value in doing so.
In particular, Louis wrote:

For Brazil, we can certainly continue using AQDPLL (or create a new one) to
> gather the money and to reimburse people. However to get local public
> money, we might need a local organisation.


So I think we can consider the AQDPLL as 'backstop' if attempts to join an
umbrella org in the coming months fail, and move on to (B).

B. If so, what umbrella organization should we work with?
>> (current proposal: Software in the Public Interest)
>>
>
> We have not yet found a non-US based umbrella organisation, which I think
> could be useful for LGM. Otherwise, I am fine with SPI or Software
> Conservancy, though I would like to hear back from them first in response
> to our questions first, before making that decision.


It seems quite clear that no alternatives to SPI have been found by the
deadline, so I think the current proposal of SPI ought to be pursued until
it is accepted, rejected, or times out and we fall back to AQDPLL.

When will we hear back from them first in response to our questions?


> C. What specific conditions should be met by the umbrella organization?
>> (see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LGM_Funding_Notes)
>>
>
> My main concern is whether there would be individual or regional
> blacklists that might make reimbursements for certain participants harder
> or impossible.
>

Did we ask SPI if they have any such blacklists? Indeed, where is the
complete list of questions submitted?

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20160521/f59b90fd/attachment-0001.html>