Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 30 June 2016 at 17:01, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Come on Dave! I trust the board members. If any of them were opposed > I'm sure we would know about it by now. Let them do the job they were elected > to do. You are welcome to volunteer as the board's secretary, the job

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 30 June 2016 at 18:06, Tony Anderson wrote: > Why can you not accept that some of the votes were not made to the IAEP > mailing list in error. You are opposing addressing this error but without explaining why. Please explain

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

The following was my reply to Walter's request. Hi Walter, My intention was to vote in favor of the motion. Perhaps we need some standard way to vote so that it will be understood. Tony On 05/18/2016 02:01 PM, Walter Bender wrote: Please respond to this request for your vote today. If you

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland wrote: > The reason I am feeling frustration is that Adam, a board member, > asked me to administer the board's record of decisions on the wiki, > and my effort to do so has been fettered: reports of motion outcomes > are reported by the

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 27 June 2016 at 10:55, Tony Anderson wrote: > Can you identify these motions. Most of the votes were cast at the meetings. > As far as I remember there were two email votes. Five motions have passed since I joined the project and I can only verify all 7 votes for 1

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi, Dave Can you identify these motions. Most of the votes were cast at the meetings. As far as I remember there were two email votes. Tony On 06/27/2016 04:14 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: On 27 June 2016 at 09:24, Tony Anderson wrote: If it is useful. It surely is

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 27 June 2016 at 09:24, Tony Anderson wrote: > If it is useful. It surely is > Why do you care for specific emails for specific votes? Transparency > Do you have any specific motions where there is concern about > whether it passed? Each motion where I can not

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi, Dave If it is useful. Why do you care for specific emails for specific votes? Do you have any specific motions where there is concern about whether it passed? Tony On 06/27/2016 02:42 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Tony On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland wrote:

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi Tony On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland wrote: > Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list > from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion > that you say you are aware of. Would you be willing to do this? Cheers Dave

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson wrote: > You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion > (email or otherwise) This is simply, factually, false. In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html Walter notes that

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi, On 20 June 2016 at 02:51, Tony Anderson wrote: > > Could you be specific on the necessary procedural actions that the Board > did not take? > Consideration of motions visible to Members. > Note that the Oversight Board/decisions page does not show the GSOC mentor >