Yeah... To Sam Greenfield's comment. That is the problem. There is no 
definition of what a "majority" of community members constitutes. The last 
election was done with far less than half of the actual members participating. 
Somehow an old list was used, even though Samson and I worked very hard the 
previous year to get an up to date list it, evidently was not used as many of 
us (myself included) were not on the list used last year. I think they finally 
have ta more complete list for this year's election.


The board has seven members. A majority of the board should be sufficient to 
make a decision about whether a board member is being an obstructionist and 
causing a lot of discouragement.


Asking the general membership to vote could turn into a popularity contest as 
they aren't generally aware of what goes on in the board meetings. In other 
words, they really wouldn't know what the actual dynamics of the board are and 
why little gets done.


For the future of Sugar Labs it is important to have an Oversight Board that 
can get things done. That is not the case now. That is why I am proposing the 
motion.


To James.... yes, you are probably right. So, keeping the right of the 
membership to vote and adding the power to the board seems like a more logical 
move. So I'll change my motion to read as follows:


Motion to be voted on by the SLOB members:

 These lines in the Sugar Labs Rules of Governance shall be changed wherever 
they occur
from:
(Changes in italics)
"The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position at any 
time by a majority vote of the Community Members"
to:

"The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position at any 
time by a majority vote of the Community Members or by a majority vote of the 
members of the Sugar Labs Oversight Board”



Caryl

________________________________
From: IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Samuel Greenfeld 
<sam...@greenfeld.org>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:18:54 PM
To: IAEP SugarLabs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Motion to Change The Sugar Labs Rules of Governance

I disagree with this.  While I have been on boards with an annoying member or 
two, letting a few board members vote the others off leads to coups and other 
odd politics.  I have never personally seen such language in governing 
documents before.

That said, what is considered a quorum of the Community Members for a recall 
vote (the majority of those present having to vote in favor of it)?


On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Caryl Bigenho 
<ca...@laptop.org<mailto:ca...@laptop.org>> wrote:

Dear Fellow Sugar Labs Members

Recently the SLOB has become extremely dysfunctional. When this happens to this 
degree, it may be time to look for a remedy. Sometimes this will best be 
accomplished by a change in personnel. Here are what some websites have to say 
about this issue:



  *   “Occasionally, a board member needs to be removed from the board. In some 
cases, a conflict of interest or unethical behavior may be grounds to remove an 
individual from the board. In other cases, the behavior of a board member may 
become so obstructive that the board is prevented from functioning effectively.”

http://www.blueavocado.org/content/four-ways-remove-board-member



  *   “Opposing viewpoints are to be expected, but they should never cross the 
line into becoming obstructive to the organization’s mission. When board 
members breach into destructive or demoralizing behavior, the rest of the board 
needs to make a decision about removing one board member for the good of the 
whole.”

http://www.boardeffect.com/blog/how-to-remove-a-board-member/



  *   “Your operating bylaws should have a procedure outlined on how to remove 
a board member. Make sure the steps are in there now, and before you run into 
any problems down the road. The board should keep documentation on why the 
board member is being removed and the steps they take.”

http://nonprofithub.org/board-of-directors/how-to-remove-a-nonprofit-board-member/


The Sugar Labs Rules of Governance provide for removal by a majority vote of 
the Community Members. However this is a very cumbersome business. Most 
organizations provide for a majority vote of the board members. Our current 
Rules of Governance say:

“The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position at any 
time by a majority vote of the Community Members.”

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance

To simplify this process, I  therefore wish to propose the following change to 
the Sugar Labs Rules of Governance:

Motion to be voted on by the SLOB members:

These lines in the Sugar Labs Rules of Governance shall be changed wherever 
they occur
from:

"The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position at any 
time by a majority vote of the Community Members"  to

"The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position at any 
time by a majority vote of the Sugar Labs Oversight Board."

You folks may wish to tweak the language a bit, but I have tried to keep it as 
simple as possible.

Abrazos,

Caryl Bigenho



_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
i...@lists.sugarlabs.org<mailto:i...@lists.sugarlabs.org>
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

_______________________________________________
Lista olpc-Sur
olpc-Sur@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur

Responder a