G'day Laura, No, I don't think your suggestion is the best fix. It can and should be much simpler.
Words spoken (or typed) during a meeting do not become a motion until there exists both a proposer and seconder from among the members of the oversight board. You should instead welcome non-member proposals at the time of a meeting; but require both a proposer and seconder from among the members of the board. The board should never prevent itself from talking about something. A meeting chairperson has the duty to remind those in the meeting what the rules are. Where there is no chairperson, all members of the board have that duty. What I see most of all is poor form of meeting procedure; which in other parliaments is handled by; - the chair making it clear when a motion is proposed, and who proposed it, - the chair making it clear when a motion is seconded, - not allowing talk on a motion until it is seconded, - not allowing a change to the motion unless the change is both proposed and seconded, - initiation, education and preparation of the board members. These form the rules of order. But I do not think these rules are appropriate for your board; they are intended for environments where conflict is used to delay and prevent decision-making. The members of the board have "a major problem with conflict resolution and consensus building," (sverma) and adding rules won't fix this. On the contrary, adding rules creates more conflict; a weapon of procedure. Please instead build trust. Disclosure: I'm not a member of the board, and I'm not a member of Sugar Labs. I'm a third-party with a commercial interest in the success of Sugar. On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 08:29:15AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote: > Hola a todos! > > During yesterday's meeting there was evident confusion among members regarding > Sugar Labs decision-making process. Specifically, we had not clear if > non-SLOBs > members were welcome or not to propose motions during a meeting. > > I propose to correct the third sentence of the Decisions description on our > wiki page it says: > > [1]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions > > "Due to confusion about Sugar Labs governance, during 2016 several members of > the project not on the SLOB posted motions, but these were not seconded, and > have been struck out to show they were considered by some SLOB members are > invalid." > > I suggest Option A to reduce to zero the ambiguity: > > Option A: > "Sugar Labs governance model encourages members of the project not on the SLOB > to post motions by email sending the proposed text to SLOBs, Sugar-devel, > Sugar > Sur and IAEP mailing lists." > > Additional options to modify the text from SLOBs and non SLOBs members highly > appreciated; lets make an effort to make it cristal clear. > > Best regards and blessings from the largest forest ;D > -- > Laura V. > I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org > > “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” > ~ Laura Victoria > > Happy Learning! > #LearningByDoing > #Projects4good > #IDesignATSugarLabs > #WeCanDoBetter > > References: > > [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep