On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:31 PM, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:07:00AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote: > > 2017-05-10 17:27 GMT-05:00 James Cameron <[1][email protected]>: > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:20:22AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote: > > > Thank you both for your interest and suggestions. > > > > > > I will research on the "consent agenda mechanism". Hope other > > > board members will also research. Clearly we have much to > > > learn. > > > > > > In the meanwhile, and if there are no objections in a couple > > > of days, I will replace the text in the decisions page of the > > > wiki, from: > > > > > > "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 agree this paragraph can be removed; if some explanation of > > "struck out" is added instead. Which your suggested text below > > does not do. > > I've added back an explanation of the "struck out" text. > I did a bit of reformatting so that the only text that is struck out is the MEMBER MOTION bits, leaving the actual proposal easier to read. > > > > To > > > > > > "We welcome non-member proposals at the time of a meeting; but > > > they require both a proposer and seconder from among the > > > members of the board. > > > > I disagree with the wording. Instead, use the text of agreed > > motion 2016-42. > > > > Done. > > Couldn't see that done. I've added the text of the motion at the > start of the page. > > > [...] > > >From what I have seen, both in the minutes and the public mail > > lists, the chair is doing a reasonable job already, but the > > board members and visiting community don't have an appreciation > > of the procedure and the chair. > > > > For instance, in the most recent meeting Caryl said "I believe > > any Sugar-Labs member can make a motion for consieration by the > > SLOB" and "Actually, all Sugar Labs members have been able to > > make motions. I have done it before as have others who were not > > members of SLOB". > > > > Caryl's behavior has been contradictory. Not only she attended the > > meeting where motion 2016-42 was approved, but she also sponsored > > the decision: > > > > "GrannieB2 <kaametza> just contact a SLOB member and get them to > > present your motion" > > > > As you know, the procedure had been changed and made clearer in > > agreed motion 2016-42. > > > > Yet nobody responded to Caryl to say that the procedure had > > changed. > > > > I don't understand why. The motion about motions was presented by > > Walter and it had 7 votes on favor so it was supposed to be clear. > > Board members are jointly and severally responsible for their actions; > that means they are responsible as a whole and individually. > > Your saying it was supposed to be clear is an admission of that > responsibility, and makes me and other onlookers think "in > communicating their meeting procedure, the board members have not done > as well as they could have done." An opportunity to improve. > I am all for improving. > > Yes, it's on the Wiki, but few people are engaged in the Wiki. > > Yes, it was in a previous meeting, but almost a year ago. > > Let's assume good faith and take a charitable view, and reinterpret; > Caryl was mixing terms (motion, suggestion, proposal); and your > interpretation may have been challenged by your experience with other > languages. > > For instance, "I believe any Sugar-Labs member can make a motion for > consieration by the SLOB" should have been interpreted as "suggestion > for a motion", ... the key to that interpretation is the word > consideration, by which Caryl says the board is still responsible for > the motion. > > and "Actually, all Sugar Labs members have been able to make > motions. I have done it before as have others who were not members of > SLOB" should also have been interpreted as "suggestion for a motion". > > So this is a miscommunication, and it was not handled well at the time > of the meeting. > > > As you know, there is ambiguity about definition of "motion", > > "suggestion", and "proposal". > > > > Yet again, nobody responded to clarify this ambiguity. > > > > [...] > > > > p.s. in my opinion, agreed motion 2016-42 might have used "must" > > instead of "should". As it stands, there is a tiny bit of ambiguity. > > > > Agree. > > > > > > -- > > > > p.p.s. agreed motion 2016-42 is listed in the minutes of the > > 2016-07-01 meeting but not in the decisions; a different motion is > > listed instead. > > > > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_ > Minutes-2016-07-01 > > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2016-07-01 > > > > You are right, there is a mistake on the numbering. I temporarily > > corrected by naming the other motion 42B. > > Agreed. I've made the change also in the minutes. That I changed it > will be in the page history. I've also checked for other references > by searching for '"2016-42"' and there are none. > > > I wished I had more time to help Sugar Labs achieve clarity on its > > procedures. > > Again, the procedures are not the core of the problem; it is awareness > and time, both of which are difficult enough in a community of > volunteers. Both can be improved by more communication, and real > changes in Sugar; which the GsoC coming up should help with. But > communication is the key. > +1 > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.netrek.org/ > _______________________________________________ > SLOBs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
