Hi Folks.. Sorry my replies have been sort of off and on lately. Still having issues with Ed's pacemaker. Hopefully it will be all good soon. He is healing nicely but still has occasional dizzy spells. About the membership list… Adam will recall the problems we were having with the list back in late Jamuary as he was with me at SCaLE when it was all happening. Sebastian had done a lot of work on the list, sending out a survey via Lime Survey to determine who wanted to remain on the list. There was just one problem… several long time contributors did not, for some reason, reply. They said they did not receive the survey (went to Spam?). Sebastian assumed that no reply meant they no longer wanted to be members. For many, this was not the case. As the election progressed (over the course of about a week) several members who had not replied notified me that they did not receive the survey and did, in fact, want to remain on the membership list and to vote. I sent ballots to all who had been on the list and asked for ballots. Now is a good time to re-visit the membership list and find out who wants to be removed. I suggest that this time, rather than removing anyone who doesn't reply in the affirmative, we remove only those who specifically ask to be removed. As I am sort of swamped with personal issues right now, perhaps Sebastian or Samson (or someone else) would like to do a sweep of the list removing those who ask to be taken off. An email to all on the mailing lists should work as a notification that they need to ask to be removed. I think Samson has been able to add all the recent new members to the list. Caryl
> From: d...@lab6.com > Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:39:38 -0400 > Subject: Re: [IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion > To: h...@laptop.org > CC: cbige...@hotmail.com; sebast...@fuentelibre.org; samsongo...@hotmail.com; > iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org > > Hi Adam > > On 12 May 2016 at 15:33, Adam Holt <h...@laptop.org> wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> 1. A section of the doc is available live here, > >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List > >> > >> 2. That doc shows 279 members > >> > >> I've requested access to the doc :) Thanks Samson! > > > > > > I'm NOT questioning Dave Crosslands' personal ethics (although many question > > his employer's ethics privately) > > I'm contractually bound to clarify this: Google is a client of my > employer, a UK company of which I am one of the directors, and I'm not > an employee of Google, and nothing I do should be construed as > representing Google or any of the company's other clients (BBC, etc.) > > > however more generally there's a very > > serious institutional/fiduciary problem here, if SL members' non-publishable > > personal data is being shared with someone who is not a member of Sugar > > Labs, as Dave Crossland recently stated he is still not a member of SL? > > That may have changed in recent weeks, but again we have no way of knowing, > > which is the core issue :) > > I am now a Member, as you can see at the end of the list of members in > the link I provided :) > > > FWIW many serious organizations wait years before providing this level of > > access (database of all their members) for profound reasons of > > conflict-of-interest, and accidental-or-worse-intentional abuse of personal > > data. > > Those organizations' data is probably more substantial, though. Eg, a > database of all Mossack Fonseca's clients is rather different to the > database of volunteers for a free software project (which is already > public given the public nature of the services rendered voluntarily in > public bug trackers, mailing lists, etc.) > > -- > Cheers > Dave
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
