On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual >>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to >>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion. >> >> >> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a >> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned >> in my recent post. Was one appointed? >> > > I don't recall. Could be me :) > I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion point (and possible immediate motion :) This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself that we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be counted as a Sugar Labs member? - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs owned project? - is the proposed strategy of contacting anyone who has contributed or even just registered with SL to ask if they would like to be a member (and providing criteria if they say yes) appropriate?
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep