The minutes from today's Sugar Labs Oversight Board meeting are available
at [1]. The meeting log is available at [2].

I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but I
have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness
for this meeting. Several community members had been working on motions,
requesting comments and feedback over the course of several months. And yet
it was only during the meeting itself that feedback from committee members
was forthcoming. It is fine to raise objections to the motions -- as I had
made clear in the email discussions leading up to the meeting, I am not
necessarily in favor of the motions presented -- but the objects raised
were things that could have and should have been raised and resolved long
before the meeting itself. As a consequence, we got mired in some
technicalities instead of talking about the big picture. I cannot speak for
those who worked on the motions, but I found this frustrating. I am at a
loss as to how to solicit feedback in a timely matter so we can make some
progress on our backlog of proposals.  I am not proposing a "charade", that
we approve motions that are inadequate or somehow flawed, but I do think
that we should respect the hard work put in by the community and be more
responsive and timely in our responses. It is clear that one hour per month
is not sufficient time to discuss, fine-tune, and vote on even one motion,
never mind the 5-6 we currently have in the queue. The discussion and
word-smiting has to happen between meetings.  I seek guidance from my
fellow board members (and the community as a whole) as to how to move




Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Reply via email to