[Libre-soc-dev] #981 update

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thursday, October 5, 2023, Dmitry Selyutin via Libre-soc-dev <
libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As we discussed, I posted a brief comment summarizing works done in
> scope of #981 and #982.

fantastic.  it was much more than actually needed, we had
everything already, for satisfying Auditors and RFP, but it
is good to be on the same page.

> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981#c25
> As you see, despite the fact that I did a lot for #982, my budget
> there is more than humble.

yes. i concluded that over a week ago.

> That said, I have to repeat one important thought, apparently it's not
> really understood yet.
> I didn't want to bring this topic into public, but after some thoughts
> I realized silence will hurt even more.

it is good to raise this because silence actually in this
case is a legal risk to the project and to NLnet.

> I _never_ _ever_ want to hear nonsense about time or code size
constraints.
> You should appreciate it if there are individuals capable of doing
> tasks fast and with a smaller amount of code.
> If you need somebody doing tasks for a longer period of time or with a
> bigger amount of code -- that's not me.
> The mere fact that the discussion on this has been started shows
> little respect and deep lack of context.

ah. right, so written is probably much easier than verbal,
we went over this in the call yesterday, it would appear
that there is some missing communication, if we speak
english.

allow me to write out the Bureacucracy Conditions that we
are obliged to follow, i feel this will be easier for you,
and also for others in future.

it is *essential* due to legal regulatory obligations
that there be a "value for money" criteria met, as *legally*
required by the European Union.

to greatly simplify that, NLnet requested as part of *their*
legal obligations that i state, as part of the Grant Evaluation,
"what estimated amount per month are you basing this Grant on?"

if the amount of work done is wildly out from that figure
then as the Signatory of the Grant *i am legally obligated to
query it*.

this is simply part of the Bureaucracy so that *NLnet* have
satisfactory answers, should an Audit take place.

now, what that in turn means is that *you* - all of you - have
to have and hold a clear value of your contribution in your
heads, and be prepared, honestly and with integrity, to make
your case.

this is very easy, very simple and very straightforward.

all you have to do, if i ask the question as the Signatory of
the Grant and Project Lead, say "can you justify this amount
of work for this money" on a bugreport, you simply reply,
"yes, i feel it is worth it because X Y or Z".

X or Y or Z can easily be only a few words.

it is that simple. conversation is finished.

the problems only come if there *is no answer*. at that point
it is *guaranteed* suspicion and the Auditor will drop a ton of
bricks on NLnet and audit EVERY SINGLE ONE of their Grants.

so we appear to have two choices:

1. lose the grant
2. lose the people.

or the third choice, where there is no losing at all:

3. provide on request (if i feel compelled as the Signatory of
  the Grant) the SIMPLE explanation of the value of the work.
  i *mean* simple.

so please understand and accept - everyone - that i am under
a *legal* obligation to ask and obtain answers to these
simple questions. there is no choice in the matter for any
of us, it is just part of the background of being able to
get the EU money.

l.


-- 
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68