Hi Tony On 1 July 2016 at 00:46, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote: > > Your motion has never been presented to the Board.
I feel very frustrated with your proposition that members can not present motions to the board. You see, of the 6 motions that have passed since I joined the project, one of them was presented to the board by me, via email, Walter simply added it to the agenda for the upcoming SLOBs meeting: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> Date: 2 May 2016 at 09:43 Subject: Re: [IAEP] laboratoriosazucar.org domain renewal ($) To: Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com>, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> Cc: systems <syst...@lists.sugarlabs.org>, "OLPC para usuarios, docentes, voluntarios y administradores" <olpc-...@lists.laptop.org>, SLOBs <sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org>, sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org, iaep <email@example.com> I will add this to the agenda for Friday. It has my support, FWIW. -walter On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If there are funds, I support the idea. > > Any domain name registration should go through the SFC, who are set up to > renew & protect them. > > If the name has expired, the SFC could register it directly with their > existing provider. > > Probably the best thing to do is to have it point to sl.o and if we ever have > a Spanish version, to that variant. > > Sean > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I'd like to submit a motions to SLOBs: >> >> 1. I propose SLOBs approve a motion to pay back the $34.34 cost of renewing >> for 2 years the laboratoriosazucar.org domain that will be made out of >> pocket by a member this month. >> >> (Sugar's most popular language of use is Spanish and having a spanish domain >> name seems like a great idea and it would be a pity to lose the registration >> to spammers.) >> >> -- >> Cheers >> Dave ---------- End of Forwarded message ---------- Similarly, this motion was written by me, Walter posted it exactly to the SLOBs and IEAP lists, and it was seconded by a board member, José Miguel - http://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg16767.html - yet no public votes were posted. I've presented several other motions, including the motion you claim was never presented, by posting them to the SLOBS list and the IAEP list. I did so following the lead of long-time members such as Caryl and Sebastian and Laura, who have also been presenting their own motions - apparently also unaware that members could not do so. You've claimed last month that members can not present motions to the board, and when I have countered this claim, you have ignored me. Making the claim and counter claim again, you've been unable so far to provide me with any actual documentation of your claim. I can present two pieces of documentation in addition to my anecdotal evidence above: 1. For the last 7 years https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes has had an open solicitation for anyone to email the SLOBs list with topics has been open: "Email slobs at lists dot sugarlabs dot org to propose a topic queue to be brought up." In the March 2016 SLOB meeting there was a motion to restrict email voting to 1 week from the date the motion is posted and this requires Board members' email votes to arrive within 168 hours of an original motion being posted, but it does not mention that the email posting the motion must be from SLOB members only. Therefore I think it is reasonable for any member to assume that emailing the SLOBs list is a valid presentation of a motion. Checkin the history of that wiki page, it seems that this open solicitation of motions began on July 11 2010 when Mel Chua edited the SLOB Minutes wiki page to add the text "Email slobs at lists dot sugarlabs dot org to propose a time, if you want the topic queue to be brought up." (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FMinutes&type=revision&diff=54205&oldid=53687) Before that, Aleksey Lim edit the same page on December 1 2010 to "Make proposing new questions for an upcoming meeting less strict" (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FMinutes&type=revision&diff=59838&oldid=59835) which I believe also clarifies the intent of the SLOB to allow members to post motions. 2. With https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FNext_meeting&type=revision&diff=99130&oldid=99129 I see that on the agenda for the board meeting later today is a new motion, which has not been posted to the IEAP list: "to have motions submitted by oversight board members" Given that this motion is only now being posted, I think an assumption that until that motion passes, members are allowed to post motions, is reasonable. Otherwise, why is this motion needed? So, of the 7 board members, only you have asserted that members can not present motions, and one board member, Walter, has been adding motions posted by members to the board's agenda, and you have sometimes been voting on such motions. Still, I am willing to accept that this is the case. I expect this secret motion, drafted in private without community consultation, will be passed, making it perfectly clear that members should not attempt to present motions directly to the board, and should instead approach a board member to present a motion on a topic they care about. Therefore, since providing the membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each motion is currently impossible until the board passes a motion requiring votes to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as valid, I ask you again if you would be willing to post such a motion to improve the operation of the project? >> Your record of decisions includes many items that have never become before >> the Board. You annoy many of us by >> your continual accusations that we are 'hiding' actions from the members >> of the Sugar Labs community. I do not understand how you can show me the evidence that votes are posted privately and then claim these votes are available to the public. >> From my point of view, the SLOBs list can be made public. Any necessary >> private communications can be made by private email. >> With seven members, this is not so burdensome. I agree, that would also be a good way to provide the membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each motion. Would you be willing to post such a motion, setting the SLOB list to be public, and asking Conservancy to email the SLOB team directly for matters that ought to stay private? -- Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep