Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 06:54:11PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> Any reference for the motion candidates expressing their wish to be
> part of the Committee would be in order.

That's not necessary.

The oversight board has decided that Pericherla, Hirish and
Ibiam are members of the membership and elections committee.

Don't be worried about their consent, it's not your problem.  Should
they now not consent, they may resign, by writing to the oversight
board.

-- 
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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[Walter Bender]

Can we please move on? Regardless of the merit of bringing this to SLOB,
the vote was taken, the motion passed. I think James was quite clear
regarding next steps. Lets please get back to the work of the committee
itself.

regards.

-walter

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

>
>
> 2017-09-07 17:19 GMT-05:00 James Cameron :
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> *Any reference for the motion candidates expressing their wish to be part
> of the Committee *would be in order.
>
> Again Ibiam has expressed constantly and my vote for his inclusion is +1.
>
> Regards
>
>
>>
>> > 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>



-- 
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] [SLOBS] ACTION Required: Approval Internal Procedure definition: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

>
>
> 2017-09-07 14:59 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Laura Vargas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-09-07 14:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>>>


 On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Laura Vargas 
 wrote:

> Hi SLOBs,
>
> *To avoid future Sugar Labs travelers to have to request personal
> loans to fulfill their programs expectations* and as it has been
> discussed recently by the Board, Sugar Labs Travel Policy is subject to
> Software Freedom Conservancy Travel Policy and therefore we are
> required to approve a procedure
> 
> for "Request for Travel Policy exemptions".
>
> I have documented the following draft on: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org
> /go/Procedures with very limited understanding of Ignacio's US$350
> Cash Advance April 2017 Travel Policy - rejection circumstances.
>
> Those with more info, please read and give back your constructive
> feedback to enhance the procedure before making a *proper motion to
> approve the procedure.*
>
>
> Regards,
> Laura V
> Internal Procedure #01: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"
>
> >Action 1: Any Sugar Labs member/contributor can request a Cash
> advance - Travel Policy exemption by sending a formal request to slobs AT
> lists.sugarlabs.org detailing the reason for the request, the amount
> of the request, the date needed and any other relevant information.
> Requesting party understands SFC has the final approval for his/her 
> request
> and must make sure to ask with enough anticipation of the need of the Cash
> advance - Travel Policy exemption.
>
> >Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members manage project funds,
> and according to available balance on Sugar Labs Accounts at the date of
> the request, they must try to reach consensus in the form of majority of
> votes to approve or disapprove the request. Once the request gets approved
> or disapproved the decision shall be documented on
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions.
>
> >Action 3: In case of an approved decision, Sugar Labs representative
> or his/her delegate (e.g. Sugar Labs Financial Manager) will communicate 
> to
> SFC the decision and make in Sugar Labs behalf the correspondent Cash
> Advance - Travel Policy exemption request and follow up the result with 
> the
> Conservancy sharing the results with the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and 
> the
> requesting party.
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
 Laura,

 Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this.

>>>
>>> Your welcome!
>>>
>>> I undid your changes since *a procedure needs to have Action items
>>> clearly identified to be able to track any upgrade required to the proposed
>>> procedure*.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, my wording was much easier to follow than yours and had a number of
>> tweaks, such as removing the requirement that the request be made by a
>> "member".
>>
>
> I have no idea or reference of any case. Please explain why a requirement
> would be acceptable of it is made to Sugar Labs by a non-member/contributor?
>

Given the problems we have had in maintaining the membership list -- long
standing contributors such as Martin removed -- I don't think it is a
reliable metric for contributor. And I have worked closely with many
members of the community who have not -- for whatever reason -- ever chosen
to register as a member. I had to wrestle with the SFC to get a travel
reimbursement of ~US$150 for her several years ago, even while she was
providing $1000s of local accommodations and other services from her own
pocket. So, yes, I feel strongly that we no restrict the process to
members.

>
>
>> Perhaps for a non-native speaker of English, adding the word 'Action:" at
>> the start of a sentence is helpful? To a native speaker, it is redundant.
>> But beyond that detail. you also undid the detailed content of my changes
>> as well. Can you explain your reasons? Did you disagree with my edits?
>>
>
>
> Yes, functionality shall not be sacrificed in the name of Cosmetology :D
>

I have no idea what that means.

>
> Remember our goal is to *make the procedure friendly, easy to understand,
> translate and follow.*
>

It 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-07 17:19 GMT-05:00 James Cameron :

> 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.
>

*Any reference for the motion candidates expressing their wish to be part
of the Committee *would be in order.

Again Ibiam has expressed constantly and my vote for his inclusion is +1.

Regards


>
> > 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/
>



-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ L. Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] ACTION Required: Approval Internal Procedure definition: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-07 14:59 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-07 14:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Laura Vargas 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi SLOBs,

 *To avoid future Sugar Labs travelers to have to request personal loans
 to fulfill their programs expectations* and as it has been discussed
 recently by the Board, Sugar Labs Travel Policy is subject to Software
 Freedom Conservancy Travel Policy and therefore we are required to
 approve a procedure
 
 for "Request for Travel Policy exemptions".

 I have documented the following draft on: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org
 /go/Procedures with very limited understanding of Ignacio's US$350
 Cash Advance April 2017 Travel Policy - rejection circumstances.

 Those with more info, please read and give back your constructive
 feedback to enhance the procedure before making a *proper motion to
 approve the procedure.*


 Regards,
 Laura V
 Internal Procedure #01: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

 >Action 1: Any Sugar Labs member/contributor can request a Cash advance
 - Travel Policy exemption by sending a formal request to slobs AT
 lists.sugarlabs.org detailing the reason for the request, the amount
 of the request, the date needed and any other relevant information.
 Requesting party understands SFC has the final approval for his/her request
 and must make sure to ask with enough anticipation of the need of the Cash
 advance - Travel Policy exemption.

 >Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members manage project funds, and
 according to available balance on Sugar Labs Accounts at the date of the
 request, they must try to reach consensus in the form of majority of votes
 to approve or disapprove the request. Once the request gets approved or
 disapproved the decision shall be documented on
 https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions.

 >Action 3: In case of an approved decision, Sugar Labs representative
 or his/her delegate (e.g. Sugar Labs Financial Manager) will communicate to
 SFC the decision and make in Sugar Labs behalf the correspondent Cash
 Advance - Travel Policy exemption request and follow up the result with the
 Conservancy sharing the results with the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and the
 requesting party.

 --
 Laura V.
 * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

 “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
 ~ L. Victoria

 Happy Learning!
 #LearningByDoing
 #Projects4good
 #IDesignATSugarLabs
 #WeCanDoBetter

 ___
 SLOBs mailing list
 sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
 http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs


>>> Laura,
>>>
>>> Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this.
>>>
>>
>> Your welcome!
>>
>> I undid your changes since *a procedure needs to have Action items
>> clearly identified to be able to track any upgrade required to the proposed
>> procedure*.
>>
>
> IMHO, my wording was much easier to follow than yours and had a number of
> tweaks, such as removing the requirement that the request be made by a
> "member".
>

I have no idea or reference of any case. Please explain why a requirement
would be acceptable of it is made to Sugar Labs by a non-member/contributor?


> Perhaps for a non-native speaker of English, adding the word 'Action:" at
> the start of a sentence is helpful? To a native speaker, it is redundant.
> But beyond that detail. you also undid the detailed content of my changes
> as well. Can you explain your reasons? Did you disagree with my edits?
>


Yes, functionality shall not be sacrificed in the name of Cosmetology :D

Remember our goal is to *make the procedure friendly, easy to understand,
translate and follow.*

A well tough procedure has few words and it is defined by it's Action
points. There are 3 clear actions being proposed for the Cash advance -
Travel Policy exemption procedure:

Action 1: member/contributor requests a Cash advance - Travel Policy
exemption

Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members take an approve/disapprove
decision

Action 3: In case of an approved decision, Sugar Labs representative or
his/her delegate (e.g. Sugar Labs Financial Manager) will communicate to
SFC the decision and make in Sugar Labs behalf the correspondent Cash
Advance - Travel Policy exemption request

Please add to the discussion (here and/or the wiki) specific requirements
for words adding, removal, etc in each specific Action
.

-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[James Cameron]

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-07 15:51 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :

>
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 at 9:08 PM Lionel Laské  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.

*The motion is controversial as it is a personal closed selection of
candidates.*

There is already an Open Call for candidates for adding members to the
Committee.

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.

Regards and happy learning ;D

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[Samson Goddy]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 at 9:08 PM Lionel Laské  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.

We just got  three new members and thanks to Laura effort we should be
expecting new members.

> .
>
> Lionel.
>
>
> 2017-09-07 8:23 GMT+02:00 Laura Vargas :
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-06 20:04 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>>
>>> As I said earlier, I don't think SLOB should be involved in the details
>>> of who is a member of this committee or that committee.
>>>
>> We should be trusting the community. That said, I agree with James -- we
>>> need more transparency from the committee. For example, when the "Sugar
>>> Labs Membership and Elections Committee strongly suggests" something in the
>>> wiki, it would be nice to have a public link to the meeting notes available
>>> so that it is clear that it really is the committee that is strongly
>>> suggesting and not just an individual's opinion.
>>>
>>
>> I fixed the discussion page to reflect my opinion only. Now it reads:
>>
>> "I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid
>> irrelevant information such as quoting other people's thoughts different
>> from those thoughts of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest
>> candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision
>> and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar
>> Labs Oversight Board."
>>
>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Oversight_Board/2017-2019-candidates
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> regards.
>>>
>>> -walter
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Laura Vargas 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 2017-09-06 19:24 GMT-05:00 James Cameron :

> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:00:24PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> > In my opinion the motion haven't pass yet as have only 3 valid votes
> > in favor: Walter as 1 of the 4 candidates for the 2017-2019
> > elections should abstain to avoid any direct interference with the
> > current election process he is participating in.
>
> I disagree.  As the motion is only adding members to a committee,
> there's no interference in process of the committee.
>
> By your logic above, the only people who could vote for the motion are
> those whose slot is not expiring; Samson, Ignacio, and Laura.  And
> these three are the committee.  ;-)
>
>
 Not even I should vote on any motion related to the current electoral
 process until current election calendar terminates on October 15, 2017 as
 it could be defined as a "Conflict of Interest".

 At this point, this a polemical motion.

 I think we need to make allow enough time to set as deadline for the
 OPEN CALL for volunteers for the Membership and Elections Committee so that
 ALL members of SUGAR LABS (r) are invited to join the Committee in equal
 conditions.


 I want to underline is super important anyone who wants to join the
 Committee should state it on his/her own during an OPEN CALL.

 Regards
 Laura V


> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.netrek.org/
>



 --
 Laura V.
 * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

 “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
 ~ L. Victoria

 Happy Learning!
 #LearningByDoing
 #Projects4good
 #IDesignATSugarLabs
 #WeCanDoBetter

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

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walter Bender
>>> Sugar Labs
>>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>
>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>> ~ L. Victoria
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>> #LearningByDoing
>> #Projects4good
>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[Lionel Laské]

-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.

Lionel.



2017-09-07 8:23 GMT+02:00 Laura Vargas :

>
>
> 2017-09-06 20:04 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> As I said earlier, I don't think SLOB should be involved in the details
>> of who is a member of this committee or that committee.
>>
> We should be trusting the community. That said, I agree with James -- we
>> need more transparency from the committee. For example, when the "Sugar
>> Labs Membership and Elections Committee strongly suggests" something in the
>> wiki, it would be nice to have a public link to the meeting notes available
>> so that it is clear that it really is the committee that is strongly
>> suggesting and not just an individual's opinion.
>>
>
> I fixed the discussion page to reflect my opinion only. Now it reads:
>
> "I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid
> irrelevant information such as quoting other people's thoughts different
> from those thoughts of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest
> candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision
> and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar
> Labs Oversight Board."
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Oversight_Board/2017-2019-candidates
>
>
> regards,
>
> Laura
>
>
>
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Laura Vargas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-09-06 19:24 GMT-05:00 James Cameron :
>>>
 On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:00:24PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
 > In my opinion the motion haven't pass yet as have only 3 valid votes
 > in favor: Walter as 1 of the 4 candidates for the 2017-2019
 > elections should abstain to avoid any direct interference with the
 > current election process he is participating in.

 I disagree.  As the motion is only adding members to a committee,
 there's no interference in process of the committee.

 By your logic above, the only people who could vote for the motion are
 those whose slot is not expiring; Samson, Ignacio, and Laura.  And
 these three are the committee.  ;-)


>>> Not even I should vote on any motion related to the current electoral
>>> process until current election calendar terminates on October 15, 2017 as
>>> it could be defined as a "Conflict of Interest".
>>>
>>> At this point, this a polemical motion.
>>>
>>> I think we need to make allow enough time to set as deadline for the
>>> OPEN CALL for volunteers for the Membership and Elections Committee so that
>>> ALL members of SUGAR LABS (r) are invited to join the Committee in equal
>>> conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to underline is super important anyone who wants to join the
>>> Committee should state it on his/her own during an OPEN CALL.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Laura V
>>>
>>>
 --
 James Cameron
 http://quozl.netrek.org/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura V.
>>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>
>>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>>> ~ L. Victoria
>>>
>>> Happy Learning!
>>> #LearningByDoing
>>> #Projects4good
>>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>>
>>> ___
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] ACTION Required: Approval Internal Procedure definition: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

>
>
> 2017-09-07 14:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Laura Vargas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi SLOBs,
>>>
>>> *To avoid future Sugar Labs travelers to have to request personal loans
>>> to fulfill their programs expectations* and as it has been discussed
>>> recently by the Board, Sugar Labs Travel Policy is subject to Software
>>> Freedom Conservancy Travel Policy and therefore we are required to
>>> approve a procedure
>>> 
>>> for "Request for Travel Policy exemptions".
>>>
>>> I have documented the following draft on: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org
>>> /go/Procedures with very limited understanding of Ignacio's US$350 Cash
>>> Advance April 2017 Travel Policy - rejection circumstances.
>>>
>>> Those with more info, please read and give back your constructive
>>> feedback to enhance the procedure before making a *proper motion to
>>> approve the procedure.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Laura V
>>> Internal Procedure #01: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"
>>>
>>> >Action 1: Any Sugar Labs member/contributor can request a Cash advance
>>> - Travel Policy exemption by sending a formal request to slobs AT
>>> lists.sugarlabs.org detailing the reason for the request, the amount of
>>> the request, the date needed and any other relevant information. Requesting
>>> party understands SFC has the final approval for his/her request and must
>>> make sure to ask with enough anticipation of the need of the Cash advance -
>>> Travel Policy exemption.
>>>
>>> >Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members manage project funds, and
>>> according to available balance on Sugar Labs Accounts at the date of the
>>> request, they must try to reach consensus in the form of majority of votes
>>> to approve or disapprove the request. Once the request gets approved or
>>> disapproved the decision shall be documented on
>>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions.
>>>
>>> >Action 3: In case of an approved decision, Sugar Labs representative or
>>> his/her delegate (e.g. Sugar Labs Financial Manager) will communicate to
>>> SFC the decision and make in Sugar Labs behalf the correspondent Cash
>>> Advance - Travel Policy exemption request and follow up the result with the
>>> Conservancy sharing the results with the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and the
>>> requesting party.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura V.
>>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>
>>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>>> ~ L. Victoria
>>>
>>> Happy Learning!
>>> #LearningByDoing
>>> #Projects4good
>>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>>
>>> ___
>>> SLOBs mailing list
>>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>>
>>>
>> Laura,
>>
>> Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this.
>>
>
> Your welcome!
>
> I undid your changes since *a procedure needs to have Action items
> clearly identified to be able to track any upgrade required to the proposed
> procedure*.
>

IMHO, my wording was much easier to follow than yours and had a number of
tweaks, such as removing the requirement that the request be made by a
"member". Perhaps for a non-native speaker of English, adding the word
'Action:" at the start of a sentence is helpful? To a native speaker, it is
redundant. But beyond that detail. you also undid the detailed content of
my changes as well. Can you explain your reasons? Did you disagree with my
edits?

>
> Your inquiry is related to  Action 2 of the proposed procedure:
>
> >Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members manage project funds, and
> according to available balance on Sugar Labs Accounts at the date of the
> request, they must try to reach consensus in the form of majority of votes
> to approve or disapprove the request. Once the request gets approved or
> disapproved the decision shall be documented on
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions.
>
>
> Please be as specific as possible. What else would you like Action 2 to
> say?
>

I would like specific criteria for the decisions that SLOB makes.
Currently, the only criteria stated is availability of funds. But clearly
there are other criteria, since Samson's request, fully funded by Google,
was denied. I ask that those who voted down that request clarify the
criteria that they used.

>
> We can add it once we have a better understanding of your suggestion.
>

Since my suggestions are removed, it will be hard to have a discussion
about them. I'll copy my deleted text here, with "Action" prepended, since
apparently you don't want to use the wiki for edits/discussion:

Action 1: Before asking for a travel advance, please consider the following
questions:

   - Is the travel on behalf of Sugar Labs?
   - Has the trip been approved by the Sugar Labs oversight 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] ACTION Required: Approval Internal Procedure definition: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> Hi SLOBs,
>
> *To avoid future Sugar Labs travelers to have to request personal loans to
> fulfill their programs expectations* and as it has been discussed
> recently by the Board, Sugar Labs Travel Policy is subject to Software
> Freedom Conservancy Travel Policy and therefore we are required to
> approve a procedure
> 
> for "Request for Travel Policy exemptions".
>
> I have documented the following draft on: https://wiki.sugarlabs.
> org/go/Procedures with very limited understanding of Ignacio's US$350
> Cash Advance April 2017 Travel Policy - rejection circumstances.
>
> Those with more info, please read and give back your constructive feedback
> to enhance the procedure before making a *proper motion to approve the
> procedure.*
>
>
> Regards,
> Laura V
> Internal Procedure #01: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"
>
> >Action 1: Any Sugar Labs member/contributor can request a Cash advance -
> Travel Policy exemption by sending a formal request to slobs AT
> lists.sugarlabs.org detailing the reason for the request, the amount of
> the request, the date needed and any other relevant information. Requesting
> party understands SFC has the final approval for his/her request and must
> make sure to ask with enough anticipation of the need of the Cash advance -
> Travel Policy exemption.
>
> >Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members manage project funds, and
> according to available balance on Sugar Labs Accounts at the date of the
> request, they must try to reach consensus in the form of majority of votes
> to approve or disapprove the request. Once the request gets approved or
> disapproved the decision shall be documented on
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions.
>
> >Action 3: In case of an approved decision, Sugar Labs representative or
> his/her delegate (e.g. Sugar Labs Financial Manager) will communicate to
> SFC the decision and make in Sugar Labs behalf the correspondent Cash
> Advance - Travel Policy exemption request and follow up the result with the
> Conservancy sharing the results with the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and the
> requesting party.
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
Laura,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this. I made some edits that are
largely cosmetic, and also added a section regarding criteria. The latter
needs input.

The oversight board will discuss the request and may ask for clarification.
The criteria for approval include:

   - availability of funds
   -  ???


regards.

-walter




-- 
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] ACTION Required: Approval Internal Procedure definition: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

[Laura Vargas]

Hi SLOBs,

*To avoid future Sugar Labs travelers to have to request personal loans to
fulfill their programs expectations* and as it has been discussed recently
by the Board, Sugar Labs Travel Policy is subject to Software Freedom
Conservancy Travel Policy and therefore we are required to approve a
procedure

for "Request for Travel Policy exemptions".

I have documented the following draft on:
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Procedures with very limited understanding of
Ignacio's US$350 Cash Advance April 2017 Travel Policy - rejection
circumstances.

Those with more info, please read and give back your constructive feedback
to enhance the procedure before making a *proper motion to approve the
procedure.*


Regards,
Laura V
Internal Procedure #01: "Request for Travel Policy exemptions"

>Action 1: Any Sugar Labs member/contributor can request a Cash advance -
Travel Policy exemption by sending a formal request to slobs AT
lists.sugarlabs.org detailing the reason for the request, the amount of the
request, the date needed and any other relevant information. Requesting
party understands SFC has the final approval for his/her request and must
make sure to ask with enough anticipation of the need of the Cash advance -
Travel Policy exemption.

>Action 2: Sugar Labs Oversight Board members manage project funds, and
according to available balance on Sugar Labs Accounts at the date of the
request, they must try to reach consensus in the form of majority of votes
to approve or disapprove the request. Once the request gets approved or
disapproved the decision shall be documented on
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions.

>Action 3: In case of an approved decision, Sugar Labs representative or
his/her delegate (e.g. Sugar Labs Financial Manager) will communicate to
SFC the decision and make in Sugar Labs behalf the correspondent Cash
Advance - Travel Policy exemption request and follow up the result with the
Conservancy sharing the results with the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and the
requesting party.

-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ L. Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Urgent Motion: To add three contributors into the membership/election committee

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-06 20:04 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :

> As I said earlier, I don't think SLOB should be involved in the details of
> who is a member of this committee or that committee.
>
We should be trusting the community. That said, I agree with James -- we
> need more transparency from the committee. For example, when the "Sugar
> Labs Membership and Elections Committee strongly suggests" something in the
> wiki, it would be nice to have a public link to the meeting notes available
> so that it is clear that it really is the committee that is strongly
> suggesting and not just an individual's opinion.
>

I fixed the discussion page to reflect my opinion only. Now it reads:

"I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant
information such as quoting other people's thoughts different from those
thoughts of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest candidates to
focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision and/or
management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar Labs
Oversight Board."

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Oversight_Board/2017-2019-candidates


regards,

Laura



>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-06 19:24 GMT-05:00 James Cameron :
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:00:24PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
>>> > In my opinion the motion haven't pass yet as have only 3 valid votes
>>> > in favor: Walter as 1 of the 4 candidates for the 2017-2019
>>> > elections should abstain to avoid any direct interference with the
>>> > current election process he is participating in.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  As the motion is only adding members to a committee,
>>> there's no interference in process of the committee.
>>>
>>> By your logic above, the only people who could vote for the motion are
>>> those whose slot is not expiring; Samson, Ignacio, and Laura.  And
>>> these three are the committee.  ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Not even I should vote on any motion related to the current electoral
>> process until current election calendar terminates on October 15, 2017 as
>> it could be defined as a "Conflict of Interest".
>>
>> At this point, this a polemical motion.
>>
>> I think we need to make allow enough time to set as deadline for the OPEN
>> CALL for volunteers for the Membership and Elections Committee so that ALL
>> members of SUGAR LABS (r) are invited to join the Committee in equal
>> conditions.
>>
>>
>> I want to underline is super important anyone who wants to join the
>> Committee should state it on his/her own during an OPEN CALL.
>>
>> Regards
>> Laura V
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> James Cameron
>>> http://quozl.netrek.org/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>
>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>> ~ L. Victoria
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>> #LearningByDoing
>> #Projects4good
>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>



-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ L. Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep