Since we are in the spirit of Openness i will like to express my feelings. First, i will like to thank you for the support and time "you" have spent in making the timetable for this election. I highlighted "you" in that sentence, because over 70% of discussion made from the membership/election committee are all from you. Maybe ignacio(please confirm) that if you mail him privately but certainly not with me which i believe as a committee we should make decision together.
So the "we" is more of "i". The only thing i was aware of was the email verification, which you came up with and i agreed, with ignacio doing the technical part of the email project. Apart from that, i want to share with the committee that apart from the verification of member which i was part of (sort of) and agreeing that Laura should be our liaison person. My opinion and that of ignacio was not seek (Both members of the election) ignacio again could you confirm this statement?. Every other thing apart from these two decisions were all made my laura. Secondly, laura didn't go against the rules she have been trying to make in this community by doing things the right way, she also went against the rule of been in a "committee". Well, she might be doing for some other reason. But since she used the word "*controversial as it is a personal closed selection*" to this motion, i also want to use her words against her by saying that, laura is has been the one making decision and according to this wiki https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2017-2019-candidates "Sebastian is father to two precious children that are being homeschooled in collaboration with his dear wife and co-creator Laura Vargas." and with the recent activities going on, who is more controversial. (Sorry Sebastian for using you as a reference, i am trying to make a point). Laura is connected (by marriage) to one of the candidate running for this year's election and with the recent attacks on ignacio's travel. Ignacio publicly stated that he is no longer motivated to handle anything leadership(SLOBS/Membership) but he will be primary focus on development. So with this statement, it is more of Laura and Samson than Laura, Samson and Ignacio in the committee. Also about reference for this motion, i clearly stated that i will bring up a motion for addition of members in the membership committee starting with ibiam. Laura even mention i make motion for it [1] and it got 4 votes. I have been in the committee for almost 3 years now [2]. Conducted the last two election, abstain from one as i was running for SLOB and now i am back in the committee but now SLOB. Thirdly, as a member of the membership committee for almost 3 years now, i will requesting Laura shouldn't receive votes or count them without other committee members involved. [1] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/2017-09-01#i_2902834 [2] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Committees#Membership_and_Elections_Committee She demanded i explain myself, here is me becoming transparent. Regards Samson On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:19 PM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:56:49PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote: > > > > 2017-09-07 15:51 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy <[1]samsongo...@gmail.com>: > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 at 9:08 PM Lionel Laské <[2] > lionel.la...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > -1 for the motion. > > > > As James said, I don't think adding more Sugar Labs members will > give > > more transparency. > > > > Good point to make an open call if there is more volunteer but > do a > > motion to "force" new members to the committee is not fair. > > Plus except if I miss something I didn't seen in this thread a > clear > > request from Pericherla, Hirish or Ibiam to be a part of the > committee > > > > the motion passed and second this is not the first time Ibiam showed > > interest > > Just that you didnt catch the mail. > > > > Samson, > > > > Please get used to add reference to your words otherwise you loose > > and confuse readers. > > I had no trouble with Samson's mail. Which part did you not > understand or need a reference for? Be specific. > > > The motion is controversial as it is a personal closed selection of > > candidates. > > Sure, it was controversial, that much is clear, but you must accept > that the motion was agreed, and now you must do these things; > > 1. ensure that the new committee members Pericherla, Hirish and Ibiam > are inducted into the committee, with sub-tasks; > > 1. a. add them to the sunjammer:/etc/aliases entry for members@ > > 1. b. add them to the mailing lists, in particular the recently > created mailing list for enumerating Sugar Labs members, > > 1. c. inform them of all prior decisions of the committee, > > 1. d. give them the minutes of all prior meetings of the committee. > > 2. invite them to the next meeting of the committee. > > If you do not do these things, then you are directly disobeying the > oversight board. You wouldn't, would you? ;-) > > > There is already an Open Call for candidates for adding members to the > > Committee. > > Your personal open call is fine, and it will be up to the new six > person committee to respond to any offers. > > > Anyone who has interest or intention to become a volunteer member of > > the Membership and Elections Committee please attend the Call and > > send a mail to members AT sugarlabs DOT org cc IAEP if possible. > > Please advise once you have added Pericherla, Hirish and Ibiam to this > mailing list or alias, otherwise we all know that the mail must be > sent both to members@ _and_ Pericherla, Hirish and Ibiam. > > I've checked just now, and they are not yet on the list; > > ssh sunjammer grep members /etc/aliases > > > Regards and happy learning ;D > > > > Laura > > SL MEC Liaison > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.netrek.org/ >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
