Custodian accounting [Was [PV characterization] Re: {SENSORICA} Milestone 2 - Pay day !!]

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Lynn Foster

unread,
Sep 24, 2015, 1:20:51 PM9/24/15
to Tiberius Brastaviceanu, John CC, Bob Haugen, PV characterization project forum, SENSORICA
Note: This is another function we are running in parallel (the accounting report), but haven't had a chance to get properly finalized in NRP.  It wouldn't take much to get it going so there is not so much double work.

I have had a concern for a while in this area: The support work at Sensorica is not being rewarded when income comes in.  Tibi has been doing the bookkeeping for example, and Francois before him.  Has either gotten a penny for that?

The accounting report thing has been going on for months, because Tibi hasn't had time to work with me on it.  And who would step up with no prospect of being included in payment for their contributions, even though they are essential for the network?

A possibly better solution:
1. "Overhead" functions should be part of the PVC value equation, and all others that make money.  This could theoretically be covered by the Sensorica 5% (or whatever %) but in fact it doesn't cover that at all and won't for some time because rent comes first.  So it should be directly addressed.
2. If there is someone who is not involved in the R&D work, and/or who would enjoy the monthly custodian bookkeeping, they could take over from Tibi.  And we could get this working in NRP so there is no double work.  It's pretty close now I think.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Forgot to link to the  Accounting for SENSORICA spreadsheet

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you John. 

Thomas left 127.89$ from his payment for SENSORICA infrastructure development and maintenance. 
Tammy left 164.09$ for Infrastructure development.
Maria left 276.12$  for Infrastructure development

I recorded it in the Accounting for SENSORICA spreadsheet.

Next steps: 

Run the Value Equation in the NRP, in order to transfer $ from CAKE's main account to everyone's virtual account. Lynn can show you all who to transfer these sums individually into the proper account. 
For infrastructure development and maintenance the account is Building SENSORICA
For the ECG it will be transferred to this project's account, to be used to buy parts, according to a group decision. 

Update the data on the Dashboard of SENSORICA once we do all the transactions properly in the NRP. [I export financial contributions in a CSV file and put them in the spreadsheet embedded on this page]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John CC <compuls...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd like to reinvest my share back into Sensorica as well. It's not much but every bit helps.

My preferred choice would be to invest it into getting PCBs printed for the eCG project, because that's a project I'm passionate about and my latest shield based eCG dev kit prototype is ready to be turned into PCBs (at least into version 1).
Getting PCBs printed is the next step to take the eCG project from prototype to production.

If Sensorica desperately needs funds for infrastructure I'm happy to put it directly towards that instead.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just want to acknowledge Tammy and Maria, who decided to contribute their gains to maintain SENSORICA's infrastructure. 
Thank you! 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's wait and see.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Understood. My idea is that it might not be possible to map the value equation formula from the spreadsheet into the NRP-VAS without extra programming. It all depends on the flexibility of the crunching engine behind the value equation in the NRP-VAS. Spreadsheets are pretty versatile already... 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
By 1, I mean *only* the discrepancies between Lynn's value equation and your spreadsheet, which she is digging into now, but it's a lot of work.


On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for separating these issues Bob. 

1. might require some programming, we might not be able to solve it with the filtering methods we have now. 

I can help with 2. I think you can associate a mathematical or logical expression to every piece of code that executes a portion of the algorithm, and pull these expression and assemble them into a larger expression that represents the algorithm, once the value equation is completed. We don't need to respect mathematical notations with all these strange characters. Something like the formulas in spreadsheets. For example a notation like:

Amount - Sum(Filter_and(data, criterion 1, criterion 2, ...) * parameter)

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
I see at least three sets of issues in this message (below) and would like to separate them for discussion, and give them accurate subject headings.

1. Discrepancy of results between Lynn's value equation and Tibi's spreadsheet, which seems the easiest to resolve.

2. Transparency of the value equations in NRP and spreadsheets, or value equation math in general, which is a bigger topic.

3. Tibi's Role ontology, which is an even bigger topic, as I hope will become clear.

Is it ok with everybody to separate these?  If so, I propose that we start a separate email thread for the first one, and start Loomio threads for the other two. If anybody else sees any other issues, or wants to separate them differently, please go for it. 

Lynn is looking into the discrepancy, but has some other work to finish up first, so she'll kick off that thread when she gets to it. I can start the Loomio threads by tomorrow morning latest, unless somebody else wants to do it first.

P.S. I think each of these issues is very interesting and may shed light on some other as-yet unresolved issues. You gotta get ready to understand the details in each case, though.


On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Lynn, I don't get the same results when I run it in the sandbox.

I can verify my calculations in the spreadsheet again. I essentially modified the calculation for Milestone 1, which was tested quite a lot. But I can't say that it's perfect.. I'll do my part.

A few months ago we had a discussion about the transparency of the value equation, the way it is implemented in the NRP-VAS. I don't know what goes on mathematically, behind these lists and the filters. Therefore, it is impossible for me to formally compare the one in the NRP with the one on the spreadsheet, the later is transparent, because you can access the code in each cell. Not getting the same answer tells us that they are not the same. There might be an error in the spreadsheet, but I can't go into the one in the NRP.
I think we need a math editor in NRP, at the UI level, when we build the value equation, and we need to renter the algorithm to everyone, once a value equation is implemented.

See the value equation agreement for the project. At the end of this doc you have the mathematical algorithm for calculating distributions. This is what I implemented in the spreadsheet. See if you are doing the same in the code. Perhaps get another programmer's advice, or second opinion... Once you render/surface the algorithm from the value equation I can tell if they are formally similar. If you need more clarification on this, I can help. I do have some ideas about how to render the formalism from your code.




IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE VALUE EQUATION

To shed some light on the problem in this case,
Bob and Lynn, you can correct me

We need to filter the data that goes into the value equation grinder.
From the database, we apply the first filter, the Project.
After that, we need to make sure which Process within the project is concerned.
Within these processes we have Types of work (documentation, R&D electronics, mechanics, etc.)

In the PV project, portions of the budget are allocated to Processes (Outreach, Coordination and Facilitation, Prototyping) and the value equation assigns weights to Types of work (electronics, mechanics, software).
 
After this filtering is done, we need to place the data into different components of the value equation algorithm, which should be formally sound. This part is totally obscure for the user, including those who have admin access, like myself, I think it is hard codded.



IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT VALUE EQUATION, -- HIGHER LEVEL

Thoughts for an increased level of abstraction, cover more cases and make it more flexible
In the very beginning I proposed the Activity ---> Role system
The idea was that a Role is a cluster of Activities.
Activities can be: writing, reading, experimental work, manual work, meeting, communicating, etc.
A Role is any cluster of those.
Example: Role/Administration = {writing, reading, meeting, ...}
In order to structure activities and roles, I proposed to use an ontology.
The Activity ---> Role system would be emergent.
Roles would be used in value equations.
Bob rejected the ontology idea and went simple with Type of work. So we have Projects, Processes and Types of work. But there is a problem here, because there is no distinction between activities and roles any more. I can do writing, or documentation in different contexts: R&D or as part of administration, etc. In other words, I can do the same activity in different roles. In the context of the same project, multiple people can log documentation in different roles. Should all documentation work be rewarded the same way? Most people will say NO, because technical documentation requires different skills than administrative documentation.
At this moment, Documentation is a Type of work, and it becomes harder to distinguish on the type of documentation in order to reward it differently. If the value equation runs on Roles, it becomes more flexible.



On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Lynn Foster <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tibi, check my test value equation PVC M2 test 2 - the types of work are defined on the bucket rules as filters by resource type. 

There are two levels of filtering, one that is defined more permanently in the value equation, meant for things that could apply over and over to many distributions, and there is the process or work order or deliverable selection that happens at "run time" because the nature of those selections is that they will always change.  No matter which level a filter is defined or entered, they are combined when the distribution is run.  It is an AND for the geeks among us.

(You are defining a new value equation each time because of the % estimates applied to the buckets, which is fine, but originally the thought was that projects would define a value equation and use if for much of their work.  It works either way.)

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lynn, we can select specific processes to input time contributions data into the value equation, but we can't go further, to select specific work types within a specific process. 
In the milestone 1, we put all the R&D into one bucket, electronics, software and mechanics, because they had the same $/h rate. Milestone 2 is different, we need to consider these differently, and they were logged in the same process. 

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
We can select processes for inputing data into 

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Lynn Foster <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
​>I did a calculation for the distribution for Milestone 2. I did it in the spreadsheet, since the value equation engine cannot support the way data was logged, for this budgeted project, a forward-looking value equation. We haven't reached the level of abstraction that can support all the different use cases with the Value Equation. More conceptual work needs to be done...

I'm curious - What makes you think the value equation can't support the way the data was logged?  It worked fine for the first distribution.  I know of no reason it won't work for the second.  It is only a question of what percentages are chosen for the buckets - the original estimates ("forward looking") or the re-calculated actuals, and the logic is the same for the value equation, it doesn't care.  You have divided the buckets more finely this time, but that is easily handled by the type of work filter.  Am I missing something?  (I haven't dissected your spreadsheet calculations in detail.)

I think it is still a good idea to do the spreadsheet and the NRP distribution in parallel though, as it is only the second run for Sensorica on distributing income, and this would be general best practice for a major new function like the value equation.

I put in a couple test equations, as I wasn't initially clear what percentages you wanted to use.  Once your data is corrected, I'd like to experiment and see if we have differences, and if so, what is the cause.



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
As Jim pointed out, Daniel has programming hours?!

This is a logging mistake by Daniel. you can catch that in the Milestone 2 sheet I will correct it in the NRP
9/15/2015DanielPV characterizationProgramming for product
9/15/2015DanielPV characterizationProgramming for product

I will make the changes now. 

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, 

​​
I did a calculation for the distribution for Milestone 2. I did it in the spreadsheet, since the value equation engine cannot support the way data was logged, for this budgeted project, a forward-looking value equation. We haven't reached the level of abstraction that can support all the different use cases with the Value Equation. More conceptual work needs to be done... 

So, here are the results. 

Daniel$1,103.33
Ahmed$865.39
Jim$1,295.56
Tibi$783.23
John$99.67
Thomas$420.54
Abran$57.27
Maria$138.29
Adam$72.62
Tammy$164.09
$5,000.00

See my calculations in the spreadsheet. 

Please check to see if everything is OK. There are places where I do proofs... If you can't follow the calculation I can help you understand. 

Thank you all for your collaboration. 

NOTE: We need to deliver as fast as we can. There are another 10K that we can get from this project! 
Don't forget to continue to do outreach to get more participation. 

--
Go to SENSORICA home
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home
Go to our Working Space
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home/working-space
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to SENSORICA group.
To post to this group, send email to Sens...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Sensorica?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)


--
Go to SENSORICA's project page
http://www.sensorica.co/home/what-we-do/projects/pv-characterization
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PV characterization project forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pv-characterization-pr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pv-characterizat...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pv-characterization-project-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pv-characterization-project-forum/CAH3XNQ%2BjOgDe9rSMwQoWNC%2BhX6sA4PrN3Typ2PeNtYz4qdCs1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)





--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)






--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)


--
Go to SENSORICA home
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home
Go to our Working Space
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home/working-space
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to SENSORICA group.
To post to this group, send email to Sens...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Sensorica?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)






--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)






--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)


--
Go to SENSORICA home
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home
Go to our Working Space
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home/working-space
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to SENSORICA group.
To post to this group, send email to Sens...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Sensorica?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)





--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA, 
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)



Jim Anastassiou

unread,
Sep 24, 2015, 1:25:21 PM9/24/15
to Lynn Foster, Tiberius Brastaviceanu, John CC, Bob Haugen, PV characterization project forum, SENSORICA
Wow that is great Lynn, are we talking about all of the custodian's accounting needs or the part related to affiliates and payments?

Lynn Foster

unread,
Sep 24, 2015, 2:17:54 PM9/24/15
to Jim Anastassiou, Tiberius Brastaviceanu, John CC, Bob Haugen, PV characterization project forum, SENSORICA
I am talking about the custodian bank account basically.  All the line items on the CAKE bank statement are the same as a subset of events in the NRP which involve money that went in or out of the CAKE account. All the NRP virtual accounts reside at CAKE, and specify who owns what piece of that account.

So I think what Tibi does is reconcile the bank statement monthly.  I wrote a report to help him, but I'm sure it needs to be enhanced based on what the monthly process actually is.  And since that is in the spreadsheet, there is no guarantee that all of those events were recorded in NRP, in fact he keeps track of that, and they aren't all recorded.  And there may be other issues in NRP, I can't remember any more, this was months ago.  But if so, they will be easily resolvable.

However, in general - The idea behind the "accounting" promise in NRP (VAS) is that it will provide multi-agent accounting because this is a network, not an enterprise.  So you should be able to get the standard accounting reports out of it for CAKE and any other agent, for the scope of Sensorica transactions.  But we haven't written the standard accounting reports because nobody has requested them, and then they would need to get prioritized of course.  But all the data is there in its most primitive form (economic events).  We can create these reports directly from events without all that nasty posting, ledgers, etc. that go on in a standard accounting system.  There is also an accounting reference field so the events can be categorized into an external accounting system like QuickBooks, or into a specific chart of accounts if what we create from the events themselves isn't adequate.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages