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

[Elsa S]

Hey all,

Thank you all for the elaborate discussion on this thread. I can see how
important and urgently needed this development is, which is why i would
personally not be opposed to approving the budget allocation.

It would be worthwhile though, to put down a disclaimer that we would like
to aim for a better system that eventually would have all aspects we want,
including being open source for instance. Hopefully this would happen once
the system is workable and once we possibly can reprioritize without as
much urgency. I do understand some doubts on the thread, however given the
circumstances, it would be imperative for us to get this going as soon as
possible given the importance of keeping existing data sane and keeping
NCSG EC’s work going smoother for the sake of our constituencies, our
members and obviously our growth.

My teo cents here.

Elsa
—

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:09 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> NPOC approved the allocation of one-off 4000.00 USD to go for improvement
> to CiviCRM.
>
> I thank NPOC EC for this speedy action.
>
> I was wondering if NCUC EC members could also allocate a budget equal to
> that of NPOC to service CIVICRM, 4000.00 USD?
>
> Also I have been in touch with ICANN, if we want to contract like previous
> years, we need the invoices to be paid from a bank account and be
> reimbursed by ICANN. I talked to ICANN today and it is the same this round
> as well. Previous years we used NCUC bank account to pay the costs and was
> reimbursed. If NCUC EC could also approve that the treasurer pays the
> invoices from NCUC bank account and be reimbursed, that would be great. I
> have asked ICANN staff for confirmation, they confirmed and the treasurer
> can also approach them anytime to ensure the reimbursement will happen.
>
> Thanks a lot, we need speedy action on this and I appreciate if you could
> weigh in soon.
>
>
>
> Best
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:49 AM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Michael on this - we have a fair amount of money ready to be
>> allocated for this database and the service that goes with it. I'd be ready
>> to pay a little extra for having an open bid for these services. We should
>> really set an example and practice what we preach.
>>
>> I'd also be ready to give the constituency chairs read-only access to the
>> members database as well as the NCSG EC mailing list.
>>
>> -Raoul
>>
>> On 17 July 2018 at 09:13, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
> "You have access through your NCSG EC reps."
>>>
>>> I would be interested in hearing more opinions regarding whether
>>> Constituency Chairs should have access to the database. I don't feel
>>> strongly one way or the other, but I do see a distinction between
>>> having access and having the ability to formally challenge the NCSG on
>>> its decision-making. I don't think anybody is suggesting the latter,
>>> but I think it's worth considering whether using Constituency money to
>>> support the database should be accompanied by the Chairs getting
>>> observer status.
>>>
>>> Regarding open contracting - obviously my views on this are well known
>>> :) But - it can be problematic to adopt something like this midway
>>> through a process. If we've received estimates under the understanding
>>> that they will be kept confidential, it's tough to go back on that -
>>> an understanding which is also reflected in the WS2 recommendations.
>>> However, I would support any moves to formally adopt open contracting
>>> for future processes going forward, and would be happy to help draft a
>>> policy along those lines.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:03 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
-- 
--

Elsa Saade
Consultant
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180718/e315ae90/attachment.html>