[NCUC-EC] [NPOC Excom] CIVICRM Costs/Request

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 18:47:43 CEST 2018 

Thanks Caleb

I don't have all of ec individual emails to send the proposals. If Joan
could forward them individually I appreciate it.

Civicrm is open source. But adopting it is  like adopting kittens, it is
free to adopt it, it costs maintaining it and needs a lot of technical
knowledge. As a voluntary org I do not wish on any volunteer to constantly
fix its bugs. There is another option membersclick which other
constituencies and stakeholder groups use. But they have similar problems.
To move to civicrm was Tapanis initiative.  Which I think he did for
various reasons. I was not involved. For now instead of moving around i
think it's better to work with this system. We do have the funds to make
this system sustainable and reliable and easy to use. This year will cost
this much because of the developers. Next year will be much less.

We need a system that allows ec members comment on applicants - approve or
reject or ask for more information and all the decisions be made in the
system with the reasons of each choice recorded. We also need it to be
automated with email sent to them after their status changes so tht we
avoid missing contacting applicants since it might happen if done manually.
And easily have reports about them.

We need it to be done more automatically so that it doesn't take so much
time of ICANN staff to do things manually and if we have to deal with the
system at some point ourselves be easy to do.




On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM caleb olumuyiwa <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Farznah,
>
> Can we have a workflow of this application that needs a patch?
>
> Perhaps, if we understand the functionality and workflow, we can be well
> informed.
>
> Also, have you considered if there are opensource alternatives available
> that could serve the same purpose and reduce maintenance cost?
>
> Regards
> Caleb
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:04 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Renata.
>>
>> I understand your concerns and I would like to give you a bit of a
>> background. Answers in line
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:24 AM Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michael and all
>>>
>>> This is news to me now as well so I will ask more information from ICANN
>>> staff.
>>>
>>> NCUC EC had its call today and I will repeat my thoughts on this issue.
>>>
>>> This feels too much like a "shotgun wedding".
>>>
>>> NCSG Chair wants our response by the end of the week.
>>>
>>> However, I think we should discuss with our members if want to commit
>>> half of our (newfound) budget on a database we have no access to and
>>> know the issues of (I have accompanied a few meetings at NCSG Chair's
>>> invite but I think I saw only the tip of the iceberg).
>>>
>>
>> ​You have access through your NCSG EC reps. ​
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is no guarantee that building a relationship with this company
>>> will end the issues being faced now on membership approval front.
>>>
>>
>> ​Renata, I have been working with a faulty system since January. But
>> Maryam and I persisted with the developer to make the data base work and
>> make the commenting process work. So it was functioning until a couple of
>> weeks ago when it started not saving again and our contract with that
>> developer which was done during Tapani has now ended. CIVICRM needs to be
>> maintained on monthly basis  otherwise we will lose data.
>>
>> Approval front, I still say, transparency, sure, rejection reasons can be
>> sent to you without the sensitive data of the rejected by your NCSG EC
>> representative (as Joan suggested too) .  But challenging the NCSG chair
>> and NCSG EC as to why we made inquiries to some applicants will not be
>> accepted.  It is a governance matter which I will not compromise.
>> Timeline adherence, delay in processing, sometimes happens. I try to
>> prevent it but sometimes for various reasons happen. I will try to avoid it
>> and have a speedier process. But consider that we also work with a
>> committee of 5  and all of them have to comment on the applications.We also
>> cannot accept members who are not responding to our inquiries because
>> chairs of constituencies have been in touch with them. I have made other
>> suggestions in my other emails how to tackle these issues. On my part, I
>> will make sure that issuing reports would be easy by CIVICRM design on
>> applicants status so that NCUC reps on NCSG EC  can update you if needed
>> without their sensitive information being revealed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Our choices in tech should align with our values, we have no
>>> references of practices of the company regarding ideas of diversity
>>> hiring practices, data protection etc.
>>
>>
>> ​I recommend you visit their website. ​
>>
>>>
>>> At a minimum we should send out an inquiry to our members who used
>>> CivicRM and has providers they can trust.
>>>
>>> Maybe even question altogether whether CivicRM is a good choice and if
>>> it is time to move to another system.
>>>
>>
>> ​I have looked into other options. everyone has a problem with something,
>> we should just fix the design of this and continue.
>>
>>>
>>> I`d also wish we adopt Open Contracting practices.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, this should be a collective EC decisiion but I hope at least
>>> we can have more info about accompanying this process from NCSG.
>>>
>>
>> ​I have sent the quotations - the processes and at the discovery phase I
>> will consult with you and NPOC about the features. ​
>>
>>>
>>> I will remind you all that I've asked observer status to Constituency
>>> Chairs to the database and request was denied.
>>>
>>
>> ​Yes. I will not permit this for the reasons I articulated. The chair of
>> constituencies should not be able to challenge EC as to why inquiries being
>> made. I would have been neutral if this had not happened but since it did,
>> I am worried that it will happen again.  ​
>>
>> ​I am willing to help in any other way to make the process more
>> transparent.
>>
>>>
>>> So I would like to hear more from NCSG how the SG plans to keep
>>> Constituencies informed of how half of their budget is being spent and
>>> the results achieved.
>>>
>>
>> ​I will send reports. About the process and progress made. also we will
>> be coming with an applicants approval process which ​will make life easier
>> for NCSG EC to comment and to have reports sent to the Constituencies  EC
>> as necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Renata
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Michael Karanicolas
>>> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your email. Sounds like an important issue to address. You
>>> > mention that "ICANN has set aside an annual budget for NPOC/NCUC/NCSG
>>> > for membership management system. It went unused by NCUC last year."
>>> >
>>> > What is the amount of this budget? Presumably we lost last year's,
>>> > having not spent it?
>>> >
>>> > Renata or Farzi, can you confirm?
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > Michael
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:52 PM, farzaneh badii
>>> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Joan and Renata, NCUC and NPOC EC,
>>> >>
>>> >> For the betterment of NCSG, NCUC and NPOC's membership management
>>> system and
>>> >> elections, we need 4000 USD from each constituency from their ICANN
>>> budget
>>> >> on membership management to enhance CIVICRM  and troubleshoot CIVICRM
>>> >> problems. ICANN has set aside an annual budget for NPOC/NCUC/NCSG for
>>> >> membership management system. It went unused by NCUC last year.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would be grateful if we could take a  swift action on this
>>> preferably no
>>> >> later than this week otherwise we will be facing more problems with
>>> the
>>> >> system. At the moment the system has many glitches and has no
>>> support. We
>>> >> don't want to lose data.
>>> >>
>>> >> Please kindly discuss and get back to me as soon as possible. I have
>>> sent
>>> >> the cost estimate off list to the chairs and NCSG EC, since the
>>> company did
>>> >> not want it to be public. I can go through what is needed with you if
>>> would
>>> >> like and if needed have a meeting with you this week. We can also
>>> invite
>>> >> Tapani since he was involved with the system last year and
>>> understands the
>>> >> technical needs better than me.
>>> >>
>>> >> P.S. I first made the cost estimates and the expenses into phases but
>>> at
>>> >> this stage and considering the status of budget I think it is better
>>> for us
>>> >> to just set aside some budget for making the system better.
>>> >>
>>> >> I will send  both constituencies all the receipts and the expenses
>>> made and
>>> >> submit the improvements over the course of coming months.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Farzaneh
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>> >> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>> >>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ExCom mailing list
>> ExCom at npoc.org
>> http://npoc.org/mailman/listinfo/excom_npoc.org
>>
>
>
> --
> *Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb*
> *muyiwacaleb at gmail.com <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>*
> *234 - 8077377378*
> *234 - 07030777969*
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180716/e7cfa630/attachment.html>

More information about the NCUC-EC mailing list