Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 16

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 03:35, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are not for
> the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions.
>

What do you think the purposes of the board meetings are, then?


> A majority of the Board members commented on these motions before the
> meeting. These comments were consistent with the comments made at the
> meeting with a couple of exceptions. We need to come to a consensus on the
> motions before they are presented to the Board.
>

I disagree completely :) This is not a Quaker Meeting House! :) Consensus
is explicitly not required: Motions can pass if 1 board member is willing
to second the motion and 4 affirmative votes (majority of 7 seats) are
made.


> With the exception of motions to authorize payments, I don't see that any
> of these motions have an urgency that justifies their being passed
> immediately nor any harm to Sugar Labs resulting from their not being
> passed on June 3.
>

I suggest you refer to Walter's email to understand the harm that has been
done.


> I appreciate the work and enthusiasm that you have brought to the Vision
> motion. However, I don't understand your apparent insensitivity to the
> obvious fact that these issues are very important to the community and
> deserve the time needed to obtain community understanding and commitment.
>


You have provided a valuable framework in which to have these discussions
> and that is a major contribution. I hope that when the community discussion
> has reached consensus on the wording of a vision statement that you will be
> happy with the result and proud of your contribution to it.
>

The community has had TWO MONTHS to get involved so far. How much time do
you think is needed?

Perhaps I should be drafting a 2017 vision?

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

[Dave Crossland]

On 4 June 2016 at 15:25, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I  am all for raising funds but we need to articulate the reason why we
> need them.
>
To pay for labour to achieve goals, such as the existing translations and
finance manager roles and perhaps others in the future; to find out which
members are active in 2016; to pay for all travel expenses for all active
members to attend a sugar summit... there are countless things you can do
with general funds.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

[Walter Bender]

I  am all for raising funds but we need to articulate the reason why we
need them.
On Jun 4, 2016 2:29 PM, "Dave Crossland"  wrote:

> Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to
> enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or
> other means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the
> Financial Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site
> will show progress in donations toward the goal.
>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

[Dave Crossland]

Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to
enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or
other means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the
Financial Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site
will show progress in donations toward the goal.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 07:48, Adam Holt  wrote:

> As this is a very thoughtful proposal, I contacted SFConservancy's general
> counsel to verify it is legal given 501(c)3 non-profit laws can be strict,
> and he emphasized 2 things:
>
> (1) no tangible benefits may be offered in return for a donation
> (otherwise it is not a donation, by law!)
>
> (2) if such transactions were ever to become quasi-mandatory (similar to
> membership dues in many other organizations) he would strongly prefer we
> not use the word "Member" and rather use terminology like "Patron"
> (commonly-used word in charitable circles, and doesn't imply explicit
> benefits), "Lab Assistants," or "Sugar Labs Official Patrons" (SLOPs, not
> my choice!), or "Sweet Teeth," etc, with a fun logo (that fits in with the
> existing "Sugar Labs" brand).
>

Thanks for checking in with Conservancy on this :)

Fortunately no benefits in the motion are tangible, and no transactions are
mandatory.


> Finally while I'm not at all against this very thoughtful proposal going
> forward increasingly seriously, there is a *Ton* of overhead to managing
> $12 donations,


Adam, I don't understand your assertion at all!

I imagine that when someone sends $12 via PayPal, then Paypal automatically
takes its fee and deposits the remainder in the Conservancy account; then
Conservancy is obliged to perform the light and simple task of transferring
10% of that to their account and 90% to their SL ear-marked account, which
they do with ledger-cli, which they are familiar with. I imagine that
Conservancy staff are familiar with performing this task on a weekly basis,
if not more frequently. I do not think this will be a burden. Have any
Conservancy staff expressed that this will be a burden? If it was a burden,
they are earning their 10%, so I would see no reason to not to place that
burden on them, if there was one, which there isn't.

Please list all the management tasks you think are associated with a $12
donation to be performed by anyone.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a, member

[Tony Anderson]

Sebastian,

Please identify a motion proposed by a member which has not been 
considered.


Naturally, consideration of a proposal is not necessarily approval.

Tony

On 06/04/2016 06:00 PM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

Send IAEP mailing list submissions to
iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
iaep-ow...@lists.sugarlabs.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of IAEP digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member
   (Sebastian Silva)
2. Re: Sugar/OLPC Relations (Dave Crossland)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 10:39:39 -0500
From: Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org>
To: Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>, SLOBs <sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org>,
iaep <iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a
member
Message-ID: <9ff0e258-8e0b-9a0e-f375-f038172b8...@fuentelibre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I too would support this motion. If people want to be SLOBs they should
consider community proposals not just their own ideas.


El 03/06/16 a las 17:59, Dave Crossland escribió:

Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the
current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.


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

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160604/95917160/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:53:36 -0600
From: Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>
To: Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@greenfeld.org>
Cc: IAEP SugarLabs <iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations
Message-ID:
<caeozd0wvtfef68pknozhvklglusnvbew_kej_r99xtcybut...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 4 June 2016 at 09:35, Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@greenfeld.org> wrote:


when I was discussing this with Peter a while back


Peter who? :)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160604/b4f3b355/attachment-0001.html>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

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

--

End of IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 20



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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 22:42, Samuel Greenfeld  wrote:

> My personal answer (at least in past private discussions) has been to end
> support sometime in 2020.
>

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation of the 2020 date :) I think 1/1/2020
is good.

How can we find out how many XO-1 are in active use today?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Dave Crossland]

On 4 June 2016 at 09:35, Samuel Greenfeld  wrote:

> when I was discussing this with Peter a while back


Peter who? :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Sebastian Silva]

I too would support this motion. If people want to be SLOBs they should
consider community proposals not just their own ideas.


El 03/06/16 a las 17:59, Dave Crossland escribió:
> Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the
> current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

Re: [IAEP] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Sebastian Silva]

If I was a SLOB I would support this motion. The passivity of the SLOBs
is disappointing. It is better to vote and fail, than to linger.


El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió:
> Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
> meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair
> will make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the
> chair will announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each
> present SLOB member will announce their vote; the chair will announce
> the outcome of the motion; the chair will announce the next motion,
> until all motions are voted on; the chair will invite everyone
> attending to an open discussion of any topic until the meeting ends at
> the time scheduled.
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Samuel Greenfeld]

Yes it is possible to use external batteries with XOs.  But at what point
will the costs of distributing those batteries along with spare/recycled
parts make the marginal cost of distributing modern, cheap, disposable
computers worth it?

I should probably note that the 2020 deadline originally came from the
end-of-support date for CentOS 6.  It is a pretty common practice in the
software world not to support your software longer than the OS, and CentOS
is/was the closest thing to 14.1.0 which officially has i386 support.

{There are special interest groups for x86 as well as ARM for CentOS 7.
But at least when I was discussing this with Peter a while back there was
some early concern as to their viability.}


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Could a small external battery pak, like we see so many of these days, be
> used to power an XO? You would need a suitable cable.
> Caryl
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 3, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Samuel Greenfeld 
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Sam, I am eager to learn what you personally think the date should be :)
>>
>
> My personal answer (at least in past private discussions) has been to end
> support sometime in 2020.
>
> The logic behind that being:
>
>- OLPC no longer makes any batteries compatible with the XO-1 (or any
>unit prior to the XO-4).  By 2020 the existing battery stock for older XOs
>should be pretty much dead.
>
>It may be possible to convince Paul Fox or someone to write
>"compatible" embedded controller firmware which charges multiple types of
>batteries sub-optimally given the limited EC flash space available.  But
>that would require the more general availability of replacement batteries.
>
>- Support for i586 CPUs is starting to leave mainline Linux
>distributions.  Note Debian's recent announcement about processors
>supported in Jessie but not Stretch.
>
>https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/05/msg1.html
>{The AMD Geode LX in XO-1's is a MediaGX derivative}
>
>The somewhat odd processor in XO-1s has had a history of throwing
>illegal instruction errors whenever someone compiled a library incorrectly,
>or a just-in-time compiler took advantage of an instruction the CPU lacked.
>
>Other Linux distributions such as RHEL/CentOS have gone 64-bit only.
>
>- Experiments have been made, but no big push has been made to update
>XOs beyond Fedora 18, which hit end-of-life in early 2014.  This requires
>kernel work to fix upstreamed drivers (XO-1 & 1.5) & more kernel work to
>upstream & port non-upstreamed drivers (XO-1.75 & 4).
>
>The alternative is to port an older systemd forward; potentially an
>equally annoying headache.
>
>- By 2020 one would hope Sugar is targeting the latest & most
>appropriate platform of the day, and not restricting itself to capabilities
>invented 15 years ago.
>
>
>
> Fair enough. I've schedule a chat with Leah at OLPC in a couple of weeks,
>> and I'll keep you all posted on what I can find out.
>>
>
> If there is a reason to go to OLPC's Miami office again I don't have an
> issue with that.  I was there in October, and as far as I know I'm still on
> good terms with them.
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Caryl Bigenho]

Could a small external battery pak, like we see so many of these days, be used 
to power an XO? You would need a suitable cable.
Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Samuel Greenfeld  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>> Sam, I am eager to learn what you personally think the date should be :)
> 
> My personal answer (at least in past private discussions) has been to end 
> support sometime in 2020.
> 
> The logic behind that being:
> OLPC no longer makes any batteries compatible with the XO-1 (or any unit 
> prior to the XO-4).  By 2020 the existing battery stock for older XOs should 
> be pretty much dead.
> 
> It may be possible to convince Paul Fox or someone to write "compatible" 
> embedded controller firmware which charges multiple types of batteries 
> sub-optimally given the limited EC flash space available.  But that would 
> require the more general availability of replacement batteries.
> 
> Support for i586 CPUs is starting to leave mainline Linux distributions.  
> Note Debian's recent announcement about processors supported in Jessie but 
> not Stretch.
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/05/msg1.html {The AMD 
> Geode LX in XO-1's is a MediaGX derivative}
> 
> The somewhat odd processor in XO-1s has had a history of throwing illegal 
> instruction errors whenever someone compiled a library incorrectly, or a 
> just-in-time compiler took advantage of an instruction the CPU lacked.
> 
> Other Linux distributions such as RHEL/CentOS have gone 64-bit only.
> 
> Experiments have been made, but no big push has been made to update XOs 
> beyond Fedora 18, which hit end-of-life in early 2014.  This requires kernel 
> work to fix upstreamed drivers (XO-1 & 1.5) & more kernel work to upstream & 
> port non-upstreamed drivers (XO-1.75 & 4).
> 
> The alternative is to port an older systemd forward; potentially an equally 
> annoying headache.
> 
> By 2020 one would hope Sugar is targeting the latest & most appropriate 
> platform of the day, and not restricting itself to capabilities invented 15 
> years ago.
> 
> 
>> Fair enough. I've schedule a chat with Leah at OLPC in a couple of weeks, 
>> and I'll keep you all posted on what I can find out. 
> 
> If there is a reason to go to OLPC's Miami office again I don't have an issue 
> with that.  I was there in October, and as far as I know I'm still on good 
> terms with them.
> 
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

;D I guess it was too close before the meeting, so no SLOBs had time to
read...

2016-06-04 5:00 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
> On 3 June 2016 at 14:55, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> On 3 June 2016 at 00:46, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>
>>> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement:
>>>
>>
>> Was this a motion to be voted on?
>
>
> Oh I see, you posted this thread for discussion and then posted your
> motion in thread "Motion to update current SL vision statement" :)
>



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion (1 of 2) GSoC Stipends

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> I second the motion and approve it.
>

I hope we all work together to find a way to compromise, but in any case my
opinion is already well-known, as stated a month ago:

Mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently recognized, just like the
Mentoring organization is insufficiently recognized.

My personal belief is that *both* need to be recognized far more, likely
starting equally with a 50/50 split or some such/similar distribution of
funds, inspired by Lionel Laske's thoughtful articulation of the many
social infrastructure / accounting infrastructure / mentoring
infrastructure / constructionist infrastructure investments OLPC France has
very successfully achieved.  Among many other organizational
infrastructures (technology and non-technology community tools)
backstopping the lives of volunteer-community-hackers-of-all-kind
increasingly far easier, as we can do too!  Underlying a much stronger
future for all~

Tony
>
>
> On 06/04/2016 03:02 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>
> We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
> Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
> then we can bring it up for a vote by email.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
> Motion regarding GSoC mentoring stipends
>
> Motion: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all GSoC
> mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC Admin (for
> example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a mentor, their
> share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without further motions to
> approve the spending. The share is calculated from the total awarded for
> the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar Labs income is donated to
> Software Freedom Conservancy for organisational services), minus 5%
> (retained for Sugar Labs General Funds),  divided by the number of mentors
> for the project. For example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at
> $500, the total revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for
> Sugar Labs is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor.
>
> 
>
> Note that an earlier version of this motion failed:
>
> Failed Motion
>
> Motion: To allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
> disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.
>
> Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018130.html
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing 
> listSugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> --
> 
> 
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> http://unleashkids.org !
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion (2 of 2) Sugar Labs donation

[Walter Bender]

We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
then we can bring it up for a vote by email.

regards.

-walter

Motion to request a membership donation

Motion: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar
Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of
2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are
involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not
paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who
donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The
donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as
low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from
members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600
from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename,
subject to SLOB approval.



Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].
A sample letter of solicitation of funds can be found at [2]

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018401.html
[2]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit?usp=sharing

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion (1 of 2) GSoC Stipends

[Walter Bender]

We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting.
Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion,
then we can bring it up for a vote by email.

regards.

-walter


Motion regarding GSoC mentoring stipends

Motion: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all GSoC
mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC Admin (for
example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a mentor, their
share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without further motions to
approve the spending. The share is calculated from the total awarded for
the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar Labs income is donated to
Software Freedom Conservancy for organisational services), minus 5%
(retained for Sugar Labs General Funds),  divided by the number of mentors
for the project. For example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at
$500, the total revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for
Sugar Labs is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor.



Note that an earlier version of this motion failed:

Failed Motion

Motion: To allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to
disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit.

Further discussion of this motion can be found beginning at [1].

[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018130.html
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 16

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are not 
for the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions. A majority of the Board 
members
commented on these motions before the meeting. These comments were 
consistent with the comments made at the meeting with a couple of 
exceptions.


We need to come to a consensus on the motions before they are presented 
to the Board. With the exception of motions to authorize payments, I 
don't see that any of these motions have an urgency that justifies their 
being passed immediately nor any harm to Sugar Labs resulting from their 
not being passed on June 3.


I appreciate the work and enthusiasm that you have brought to the Vision 
motion. However, I don't understand your apparent insensitivity to the 
obvious fact that these issues are very important to the community and 
deserve the time needed to obtain community understanding and commitment.


You have provided a valuable framework in which to have these 
discussions and that is a major contribution. I hope that when the 
community discussion has reached consensus on the wording of a vision 
statement that you will be happy with the result and proud of your 
contribution to it.


Tony

On 06/04/2016 05:46 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:42:41 -0600
From: Dave Crossland
To: Walter Bender
Cc: iaep, SLOBs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by
a   member
Message-ID: