Hi Dave, 2016-06-21 11:37 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
> > Hi > > On 20 June 2016 at 02:43, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote: > >> I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with >> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14. > > > Walter added those; I've only maintained the new motions. > > Its a wiki, you can edit it, so if you'd like the old motions in 2014 and > earlier to be numbered, please do it :) > > >> However, a quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on >> the motions. >> > > I think this is a misreading; please pay attention to the comments in > brackets at the end of each motion, recording the votes visible to members, > where you can see that 6 of the last 7 motions were not seconded, which I > can not interpret as "decisive action." > > >> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as >> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion. >> > > Check the history; I have done so. > > >> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting >> public log). > > > I have done so. > > >> For pending motions, use the words by the member who proposed it, with >> their name and the date submitted (or last amended). >> > > Its a wiki, you can edit it. Please add the names. > > >> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not >> made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30). >> > > I believe those motions were posted via email to be voted on at the board > meeting, so while the board didn't have time to second or vote on them in > the meeting - due to the inefficient way the meetings are conducted - they > were posted and thus stand as failed. > > But I have removed them, since they are duplicate motions. > > >> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting >> dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3, > > >> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from >> the current voting process, keeping focus.' >> >> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be >> made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within >> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no >> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give >> for failed motions. >> > > The dates in the headlines are the dates the motions were required to have > been voted on; if they didn't get a quorum of votes on that date, they > automatically failed. > > I've added an explanation about this to the top of the page :) > > >> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions. >> All motions are shown as agreed or failed. >> > > That's correct; no motions have been posted within the last 7 days that I > am aware of, but, since SLOBs email list is used for posting motions, it is > possible there were motions that I as a member am not aware of. > > I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the Sugar Project's Translation Fund? http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds. Thanks in advance. -- > Cheers > Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Laura V. I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org Happy Learning!
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep