Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-06-30 Thread Walter Bender
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Tony Anderson 
wrote:

> Hi, Walter
>
> I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his
> arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he been
> paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report to
> include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was the
> first milestone met (setup) and payment made?
>

I've not heard directly from Chris, but I am assuming he'll give an update.

>
> I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.
>

I am not sure what is going on here. We already voted on the GSoC Stipend
motion and it passed. The membership motion has not been voted on.

I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 'month'
> with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, and ending
> balance.
>

Me too.

>
> My objections are:
>
> (1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check and
> send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 'donate'
> option to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been implemented.
>
> (2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as
> know this goal has not been set.
>
> (3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an
> amount they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to
> identify themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a
> specfied amount. A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal for
> the year, members should try to donate at least $50 although donations in
> any amount are welcome' would be acceptable.
>
> (4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners
> or associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations
> available.
> The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable
> without clarification.
>
> According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the
> Financial Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed
> motion.
>

I have heard nothing further from Caryl (or Adam, who was the one objecting
to some of the reporting language in the version of the proposal we
discussed last month).

There are a few other "motions" kicking around that I am trying to get a
handle on before tomorrow.

regards.


> Tony
>
> We have a Sugar Labs oversight meeting on Friday, 1 July at 19:00 UTC (See
> [1]). Please join us on 1rc.freenode.net #sugar-meetring
>
> See [2] for the current list of agenda items.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160701T15=43=Sugar+Labs+oversight+board+meeting=sanserif
> [2] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board#Agenda_items
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Hi, Walter

I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his 
arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he 
been paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report 
to include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was 
the first milestone met (setup) and payment made?


I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.

I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 
'month' with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, 
and ending balance.


My objections are:

(1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check 
and send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 
'donate' option to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been 
implemented.


(2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as 
know this goal has not been set.


(3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an 
amount they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to 
identify themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a 
specfied amount. A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal 
for the year, members should try to donate at least $50 although 
donations in any amount are welcome' would be acceptable.


(4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners 
or associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations 
available.
The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable 
without clarification.


According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the 
Financial Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed 
motion.


Tony
We have a Sugar Labs oversight meeting on Friday, 1 July at 19:00 UTC 
(See [1]). Please join us on 1rc.freenode.net 
 #sugar-meetring


See [2] for the current list of agenda items.

regards.

-walter


[1] 
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160701T15=43=Sugar+Labs+oversight+board+meeting=sanserif

[2] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board#Agenda_items

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



___
Sugar-devel mailing list
sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


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

[IAEP] Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting

2016-06-30 Thread Caryl Bigenho
Hi Folks,
Many thanks to all of you who contributed ideas to "Motions A and B." Tony 
Anderson did a nice job of simplifying the language and I managed to do a 
little editing that allows us to combine A and B into a single motion, all 
dealing mainly with the proposed position of Finance Manager and the duties 
associated with that position.
Caryl
P.S. Re clause #2: there may be times when the financial data from the SFC is 
not available at a meeting. The first item in the clause allows for making 
updates and corrections from the previous meeting's data if it differs.
I strongly suggest this be the starting version at the meeting tomorrow.  Here 
it is:
Motion to create and define the position of Sugar Labs Finance Manager
The Sugar Labs Oversight Board shall appoint a Finance Manager by 

 majority vote from among the members of Sugar Labs.

 The Finance Manager serves at the will of the board.

 
 Duties of the Finance Manager will be to: 

 1. Serve as Sugar Lab's sole authorized liason with the Software Freedom 

 Conservancy.

 
 2. Report at the scheduled monthly Oversight Board Meeting the following:

 
 Confirmation of the accuracy of the previous month's report according to the 
SFC  Balance at the beginning of the month preceding the meeting Expenses 
during the month Income received during the month Balance at the end of the 
month









3. The Finance Manager arranges for the Conservancy to make any 

 disbursements authorized by the Board. The Finance Manager

 will maintain a 'petty cash' fund of $200 to pay for miscellaneous 

 expenditures between meetings.

 
4. The Finance Manager will receive requests for disbursements for 

 approval. If and as approved, the Finance Manager

 will present the requests at the next meeting of the Board for its approval.

 

5. All motions for funding for projects will be presented first to the Finance 
Manager who will review them to be sure the funds are being used in a way that 
is fiscally sound. If everything is in order, the Finance Manager will place 
the motion on the agenda for action at the next Oversight Board meeting and 
circulate on the mailing lists for discussion by all members before the 
meetings. 



6. At the meeting, after a finance motion has been moved and seconded, 
discussion should be confined to Oversight Board members. If Board Members need 
clarification on something about the motion, they can ask non-board members who 
are at the meeting, but other discussion on the motion by the general 
membership should take place before the meeting. 




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

[IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-06-30 Thread Walter Bender
We have a Sugar Labs oversight meeting on Friday, 1 July at 19:00 UTC (See
[1]). Please join us on 1rc.freenode.net #sugar-meetring

See [2] for the current list of agenda items.

regards.

-walter


[1]
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160701T15=43=Sugar+Labs+oversight+board+meeting=sanserif
[2] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board#Agenda_items

-- 
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 115

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Hi, Dave

I posted no motion on June 4. According to standard rules of order, a 
motion must be 'moved' by a member of the Board. Making a comment is not 
a motion.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 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: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder (Dave Crossland)
2. Re: Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting
   (Dave Crossland)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:47:55 -0400
From: Dave Crossland 
To: Tony Anderson 
Cc: IAEP SugarLabs , sugar-devel

Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 30 June 2016 at 06:56, Tony Anderson  wrote:

I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his
arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he been
paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report to
include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was the
first milestone met (setup) and payment made?

Chris, I would also like to see any and all material you have prepared
for the blog :)


I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 'month'
with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, and ending
balance.

Me too :)


I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.

My objections are:

(1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check and
send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 'donate' option
to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been implemented.

I do not think that SLOB should be bothered with motions about which
methods of donation are permitted, and which are currently
implemented. That is a matter for Conservancy to decide and its Member
Projects should allow for funds to be accepted to their earmarked
funds with any of those methods; and it is up to the project's members
to implement the methods.


(2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as know
this goal has not been set.

I agree that  fund-raising activity should have a target amount.

You posted a motion on June 4th:

"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."

This was not seconded.

Lionel then called for motions to be minimised.

I therefore expect to carry out fund raising activities without making
motions to SLOBs for approval, and without a Finance Manager
appointed, since it seems no one at SLOBs is interested in giving
meaningful feedback on either motions about fund raising or about the
FM position.

I will take into account feedback offered to me by other members.


(3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an amount
they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to identify
themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a specfied amount.
A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal for the year, members
should try to donate at least $50 although donations in any amount are
welcome' would be acceptable.

Sounds good!


(4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners or
associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations
available.

Sure


The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable without
clarification.

Cool, when I get there I'll let the community know


According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the Financial
Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed motion.

No, we haven't heard from her. I have now taken the liberty of posting
the 2 motions with my suggestions which she did not review.


--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:54:15 -0400
From: Dave Crossland 
To: Caryl Bigenho 
Cc: Adam Holt , samson goddy
, José Miguel García ,
Claudia Urrea , Lionel Laske
  

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-06-30 Thread Sameer Verma
On Jun 30, 2016 3:08 AM, "Walter Bender"  wrote:
>
> We have a Sugar Labs oversight meeting on Friday, 1 July at 19:00 UTC
(See [1]). Please join us on 1rc.freenode.net #sugar-meetring
>
Typo.

#sugar-meeting

Sameer

> See [2] for the current list of agenda items.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
> [1]
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160701T15=43=Sugar+Labs+oversight+board+meeting=sanserif
> [2] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board#Agenda_items
>
> --
> 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 -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion: To replace existing bylaw for Finance Manager

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
Motion: To replace existing bylaw for Finance Manager from:

The Finance Manager is an ex officio, non-voting officer taking care
of Sugar Labs' Finance.
Currently, this position is vacant.

To:

The Finance Manager shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Sugar
Labs Oversight Board (SLOB) and may be either a non-voting officer or
one of the current SLOB members. The Finance Manager will serve at the
will of the Board and may be removed and replaced by a majority vote
of the Board if necessary.

Duties of the Finance Manager will be to:

1. Work with the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) to manage
all Sugar Labs monetary disbursements.

2. report in advance of the first scheduled SLOB Meeting of each month
(Meeting) the following:

- Balance at the date of the previous report
- Expenses since then (with details for each expense)
- Income received since then or not previously reported
- Balance at the date of the report

To carry out these duties, the Finance Manager will need familiarity
with using the Software Freedom Conservancy accounting system “Ledger”
(see details at http://ledger-cli.org and
http://k.sfconservancy.org/npo-ledger-cli).

This Finance Manager’s Report (Report) shall be available as a full
text on the wiki.sugarlabs.org website at least 72 hours before the
Meeting. A simple majority vote of the SLOB shall be required for
approval of the Report.

The Finance Manager may be paid a remuneration for their services in
proportion to the expected workload. SLOB shall set the initial amount
and shall review and reapprove the amount of remuneration every 6
months. If this does not happen the remuneration will default to $0,
but can be reinstated at any subsequent Meeting.

Failure to carry out these duties for more than one Meeting in any 6
month period will result in automatic removal of the Finance Manager
appointment. If this occurs, reapplying for the position is permitted.
___
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] meeting reminder

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 06:56, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his
> arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he been
> paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report to
> include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was the
> first milestone met (setup) and payment made?

Chris, I would also like to see any and all material you have prepared
for the blog :)

> I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 'month'
> with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, and ending
> balance.

Me too :)

> I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.
>
> My objections are:
>
> (1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check and
> send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 'donate' option
> to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been implemented.

I do not think that SLOB should be bothered with motions about which
methods of donation are permitted, and which are currently
implemented. That is a matter for Conservancy to decide and its Member
Projects should allow for funds to be accepted to their earmarked
funds with any of those methods; and it is up to the project's members
to implement the methods.

> (2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as know
> this goal has not been set.

I agree that  fund-raising activity should have a target amount.

You posted a motion on June 4th:

"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."

This was not seconded.

Lionel then called for motions to be minimised.

I therefore expect to carry out fund raising activities without making
motions to SLOBs for approval, and without a Finance Manager
appointed, since it seems no one at SLOBs is interested in giving
meaningful feedback on either motions about fund raising or about the
FM position.

I will take into account feedback offered to me by other members.

> (3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an amount
> they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to identify
> themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a specfied amount.
> A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal for the year, members
> should try to donate at least $50 although donations in any amount are
> welcome' would be acceptable.

Sounds good!

> (4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners or
> associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations
> available.

Sure

> The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable without
> clarification.

Cool, when I get there I'll let the community know

> According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the Financial
> Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed motion.

No, we haven't heard from her. I have now taken the liberty of posting
the 2 motions with my suggestions which she did not review.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 10:57, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>
> P.S. Re clause #2: there may be times when the financial data from the SFC
> is not available at a meeting. The first item in the clause allows for
> making updates and corrections from the previous meeting's data if it
> differs.

The motion I just posted also allows for this.

> I strongly suggest this be the starting version at the meeting tomorrow.

Do you need to repost it to the SLOBs list in order for it to be a valid motion?

>  Confirmation of the accuracy of the previous month's report according to
> the SFC
>  Balance at the beginning of the month preceding the meeting
>  Expenses during the month
>  Income received during the month
>  Balance at the end of the month

How does that work for a meeting like the one tomorrow falling on the
1st of the month; does it mean that the FM is obligated to finalise
the report in the less than 24 hours before the meeting?

> 3. The Finance Manager arranges for the Conservancy to make any
>  disbursements authorized by the Board. The Finance Manager
>  will maintain a 'petty cash' fund of $200 to pay for miscellaneous
>  expenditures between meetings.

Does that mean that if two requests for funds under $200 occur in 1
month, the 2nd can not be paid until either the next month begins or a
SLOB motion to approve it?

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

[IAEP] Motion: To append to existing bylaw for Finance Manager new procedures

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
Motion: To append to existing bylaw for Finance Manager new procedures
for requesting, obtaining, and reporting use of Sugar Labs funds.



All monetary distributions must be requested from Conservancy by the
appointed Finance Manager according to the following guidelines:

Expenses:

- Expenses under $Y do not require prior approval by SLOB.

- No expenses over $Y will be paid without prior approval by SLOB. The
amount permitted under this provision ($Y) will be set initially by a
simple majority of SLOB and may be changed as needed by a simple
majority of SLOB.

- Expenses over $Y must be presented as a Request (as defined below)
to the Finance Manager who will review the purpose, goals, location
dates, personnel, reporting procedures, and budget. The Finance
Manager may assist the person submitting the Request with suggestions
for changes and improvements. The Finance Manager will include each
Request for expenses in their next Report.

At the SLOB meeting, the Chair will coordinate the presentation of
each Request, one at a time, for voting so that it is clear which
proposal is being considered for approval in any given vote.

Once a Request is approved, all budget items in the Request will be
considered approved and will need no further action by SLOB.



Requests for budgets:

A request for a budget (Request) must be presented to the Finance
Manager via email to the IAEP list.

Requests over $Y must be presented to the Finance Manager at least 120
hours in advance of the next Meeting. The Finance Manager will present
each Request to SLOB at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting for
consideration, by posting the full text of each Request on the
wiki.sugarlabs.org website as part of their Report.

Requests under $Y can be approved or disapproved by the Finance
Manager at their sole discretion; SLOB approval is not required. The
Finance Manager will detail each request, including both those
approved or disapproved by themselves, in their Report. SLOB can
provide feedback to guide future decisions by the Finance Manager.

Requests must include, and are not be limited to, the following:

1. Purpose of the funds

2. Budget proposed (in USD)

3. Details that include, but are not limited to:

- Names, qualifications, and proposed duties of natural persons to receive funds
- Proposed expenses for materials and supplies
- Dates the project will start and finish
- Goals to be accomplished
- Services that will be rendered, or confirmation there will be none
- Deliverables that will be received by SLOB, or confirmation there will be none



Disbursements:

Once a request for funds has been approved, the Finance Manager will
manage the disbursement of funds from Conservancy.

- Any Request under $Y will be confirmed by the Finance Manager via
email to the IAEP and SLOB lists as approved or denied within 72 hours
of receipt of the Request. If approved, recipient will invoice
Conservancy for the approved amount. Conservancy will generally pay
within about 30 days of receipt of invoice.

- Any Request over $Y (for previously approved budgets) will be
confirmed by the Finance Manager in writing (typically email) as
approved or denied within 72 hours of the Meeting. If approved,
recipient will invoice Conservancy for the approved amount.
Conservancy will generally pay within about 30 days of receipt of
invoice.



Reporting:

After each Budget’s completion, the results will be reported in
writing by the Finance Manager to SLOB as part of their next Report.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
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 chair - Walter - but I could not verify those
> votes in the public mail archive.
>
> Therefore I have offered a respectful motion to improve the
> functioning of the organization by requiring votes on public motions
> to be cross posted to the public mailing list and the private one in
> order to be valid.
>
> I am not sure why anyone opposes that motion, and why it was not
> seconded and approved.

I would like the board to discuss this in the meeting tomorrow; why do
all board members oppose that motion, refusing to second it?


Cheers
Dave
___
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 115

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Dave,

AFIK, it is true. Do you have any reference to show that the Sugar Labs 
Board has any different bylaws? I am new to the Board
and so at some historical point, the normal rules of order could have 
been changed.


The motion was not made by Sebastian, but by Walter. I think you need to 
re-read the log of the meeting. Non-members of the Board are welcome to 
propose actions by the Board, but Board members must take the action, if 
they so chose.


The vote by 'private thread' is not a Benghazi conspiracy theory. There 
is no one on the Board who is conspriing to keep secrets from the 
membership.
I really think your persistence in accusing the Board of conspiracy is 
out of line.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 30 June 2016 at 12:07, Tony Anderson  wrote:

I posted no motion on June 4.
...
Making a comment is not a motion.

My apologies; you drafted it and I posted it in thread "Motion: to
undertake a fund raising drive." and it was not seconded.


According to standard rules of order, a motion must be 'moved' by
a member of the Board.

As far as I know, this is false.

Here is a copy of my earlier email which you did not respond to in your reply:

--- 8< ---

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

--- 8< ---

I would like you to comment on these 4 points :)
.



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

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
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 motion. The other 4 are:

AGREED MOTION 2016-21, Walter Bender: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for
expenses incurred representing Sugar Labs at the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima.
The cost is $168.88. (See
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-19: To pay for laboratoriosazucar.org domain
registration renewal

AGREED MOTION 2016-14: To fund a program to initiate the translation
of Sugar into Yoruba. The work would be led by Samson Goddy and
reviewed by Chris Leonard, in his role as Translation Community
Manager (See 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-13 Dave Crossland: To update the Sugar License from
GPLv2 to GPLv3 
(http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

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 are going to 
abstain, then please do me the courtesy of telling me.


regards.

-walter

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Tony Anderson > wrote:

Agreed.

Tony

Unfortunately my reply went only to the SLOBs list (a feature of the 
reply all button in Thunderbird).


Hola!
+1 para
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing 
Sugar Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias 
del Perú meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88


Saludos!

This vote was addressed to the SLOBs list.

Adam's response:

I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly 
unprofessional, in all instances.


Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope 
that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving 
the situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows 
what's happening and why.


This reply went to SLOBs, IAEP, and Sugar-devel.

Lionel's response:


+1 for the remark of Adam.
+1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.

   Lionel.

This reply went to the three lists.

Claudia's response:

+1 from me!

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:29 AM, José Miguel García 
 wrote:


Hola!
+1 para
Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred 
representing Sugar Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las 
lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88


Saludos!


___
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay
Claudia's response went only to the SLOBs list.

Sameer's response. This response went only to the SLOBs list.

+1

Sameer

On May 18, 2016 5:01 AM, "Walter Bender" > wrote:
Please respond to this request for your vote today. If you are going to 
abstain, then please do me the courtesy of telling me.


regards.

-walter

This appears to be 7 votes in favor of the motion. I apologize to any 
member who wished their response to be private. All a member should need to
have the vote recorded. I think members should be able to keep their 
comments private.


I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.

Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:54 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

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 motion. The other 4 are:

AGREED MOTION 2016-21, Walter Bender: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for
expenses incurred representing Sugar Labs at the Traducción e
interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima.
The cost is $168.88. (See
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-19: To pay for laboratoriosazucar.org domain
registration renewal

AGREED MOTION 2016-14: To fund a program to initiate the translation
of Sugar into Yoruba. The work would be led by Samson Goddy and
reviewed by Chris Leonard, in his role as Translation Community
Manager (See 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-13 Dave Crossland: To update the Sugar License from
GPLv2 to GPLv3 
(http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)
.



___
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 115

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 12:07, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> I posted no motion on June 4.
> ...
> Making a comment is not a motion.

My apologies; you drafted it and I posted it in thread "Motion: to
undertake a fund raising drive." and it was not seconded.

> According to standard rules of order, a motion must be 'moved' by
> a member of the Board.

As far as I know, this is false.

Here is a copy of my earlier email which you did not respond to in your reply:

--- 8< ---

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

--- 8< ---

I would like you to comment on these 4 points :)
___
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 115

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Hi Dave,

I am new to the Board, but in most organizations they are specified in 
the bylaws (which I must confess I have never seen). In the absence, 
most organizations use Robert's Rules of Order.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:40 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 30 June 2016 at 12:07, Tony Anderson  wrote:

According to standard rules of order

Where are these?
.



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

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 13:27, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> On 27 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> > 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?

Thanks for taking the time to do attempt this :)

So, 4 of the votes were posted in private and you got them because you
are on the SLOB list; only 3 were public, and while you didn't provide
links that I can add to the Decisions page, I'll take your word for it
:)

Previous on this thread you said:

- "I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public."

- "I don't remember anything private in those votes."

- "I am certainly not aware of any motion made by a member of the
Board which has not been handled entirely in public."

Given that 4 of the votes were posted in private, then I say those
statements are kindly mistaken.

Rather, I would say:

- the actions of the board have been clearly summarised (thank you
Walter) but not made in public

- you have now reported the votes for one motion not made in public

- that motion was therefore not handled entirely in public


> I think members should be able to keep their comments private.

I agree - I said earlier, "As you know I have engaged the SLOBs list
privately over legally sensitive trademark matters, which I hope
demonstrates that I understand and agree with the need for a private
board discussion forum."

> I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.

Please don't worry about it - it is clear that providing the
membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each
motion is impossible, until the board passes a motion requiring votes
to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as
valid.

As a SLOB member, would you be willing to post such a motion to
improve the operation of the project?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting

2016-06-30 Thread Caryl Bigenho
As the original proposer of the motion, I hope to see the version Tony and I 
have crafted be the version voted on tomorrow. I really appreciate the time and 
effort people have it into it, but I would like to see this "kiss" version be 
the one voted on. 
Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
>> On 30 June 2016 at 10:57, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>> 
>> P.S. Re clause #2: there may be times when the financial data from the SFC
>> is not available at a meeting. The first item in the clause allows for
>> making updates and corrections from the previous meeting's data if it
>> differs.
> 
> The motion I just posted also allows for this.
> 
>> I strongly suggest this be the starting version at the meeting tomorrow.
> 
> Do you need to repost it to the SLOBs list in order for it to be a valid 
> motion?
> 
>> Confirmation of the accuracy of the previous month's report according to
>> the SFC
>> Balance at the beginning of the month preceding the meeting
>> Expenses during the month
>> Income received during the month
>> Balance at the end of the month
> 
> How does that work for a meeting like the one tomorrow falling on the
> 1st of the month; does it mean that the FM is obligated to finalise
> the report in the less than 24 hours before the meeting?
> 
>> 3. The Finance Manager arranges for the Conservancy to make any
>> disbursements authorized by the Board. The Finance Manager
>> will maintain a 'petty cash' fund of $200 to pay for miscellaneous
>> expenditures between meetings.
> 
> Does that mean that if two requests for funds under $200 occur in 1
> month, the 2nd can not be paid until either the next month begins or a
> SLOB motion to approve it?
> 
> -- 
> Cheers
> Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Caryl Bigenho
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.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
>> On 30 June 2016 at 13:27, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>>> On 27 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to do attempt this :)
> 
> So, 4 of the votes were posted in private and you got them because you
> are on the SLOB list; only 3 were public, and while you didn't provide
> links that I can add to the Decisions page, I'll take your word for it
> :)
> 
> Previous on this thread you said:
> 
> - "I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public."
> 
> - "I don't remember anything private in those votes."
> 
> - "I am certainly not aware of any motion made by a member of the
> Board which has not been handled entirely in public."
> 
> Given that 4 of the votes were posted in private, then I say those
> statements are kindly mistaken.
> 
> Rather, I would say:
> 
> - the actions of the board have been clearly summarised (thank you
> Walter) but not made in public
> 
> - you have now reported the votes for one motion not made in public
> 
> - that motion was therefore not handled entirely in public
> 
> 
>> I think members should be able to keep their comments private.
> 
> I agree - I said earlier, "As you know I have engaged the SLOBs list
> privately over legally sensitive trademark matters, which I hope
> demonstrates that I understand and agree with the need for a private
> board discussion forum."
> 
>> I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.
> 
> Please don't worry about it - it is clear that providing the
> membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each
> motion is impossible, until the board passes a motion requiring votes
> to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as
> valid.
> 
> As a SLOB member, would you be willing to post such a motion to
> improve the operation of the project?
> ___
> 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-devel] A Better Idea...

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
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 Adam
asked me to do. Would you like to do this?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Dave

I am really tired of these accusations. At the time that this motion was 
voted on, there had not been this hue and cry about voting on IAEP. 
There was
no deliberate attempt for the votes to be made secretly behind the backs 
of the members. Why can you not accept that some of the votes were not 
made to the IAEP mailing list in error.


I copied the text of the emails. What more can you possibly want. A 
sworn affidavit? For God's sake this motion was made at the request of 
the Conservancy when the item was in the limit of petty cash.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 07:54 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 30 June 2016 at 13:27, Tony Anderson  wrote:

On 27 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:

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?

Thanks for taking the time to do attempt this :)

So, 4 of the votes were posted in private and you got them because you
are on the SLOB list; only 3 were public, and while you didn't provide
links that I can add to the Decisions page, I'll take your word for it
:)

Previous on this thread you said:

- "I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public."

- "I don't remember anything private in those votes."

- "I am certainly not aware of any motion made by a member of the
Board which has not been handled entirely in public."

Given that 4 of the votes were posted in private, then I say those
statements are kindly mistaken.

Rather, I would say:

- the actions of the board have been clearly summarised (thank you
Walter) but not made in public

- you have now reported the votes for one motion not made in public

- that motion was therefore not handled entirely in public



I think members should be able to keep their comments private.

I agree - I said earlier, "As you know I have engaged the SLOBs list
privately over legally sensitive trademark matters, which I hope
demonstrates that I understand and agree with the need for a private
board discussion forum."


I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.

Please don't worry about it - it is clear that providing the
membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each
motion is impossible, until the board passes a motion requiring votes
to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as
valid.

As a SLOB member, would you be willing to post such a motion to
improve the operation of the project?
.



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

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
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
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Adam - sorry, caught again by the 'reply list' button.

Tony

On 06/30/2016 07:10 PM, Tony Anderson wrote:

Hi, Dave

Your motion has never been presented to the Board. I have no specific 
knowledge that all members oppose it.


Your record of decisions includes many items that have never become 
before the Board. You annoy many of us by
your continual accusations that we are 'hiding' actions from the 
members of the Sugar Labs community.


From my point of view, the SLOBs list can be made public. Any 
necessary private communications can be made by private email.

With seven members, this is not so burdensome.

Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:56 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

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 chair - Walter - but I could not verify those
votes in the public mail archive.

Therefore I have offered a respectful motion to improve the
functioning of the organization by requiring votes on public motions
to be cross posted to the public mailing list and the private one in
order to be valid.

I am not sure why anyone opposes that motion, and why it was not
seconded and approved.

I would like the board to discuss this in the meeting tomorrow; why do
all board members oppose that motion, refusing to second it?


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


___
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] Voting on GPLv3 motion

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Hi, Dave

This is what I have been able to find regarding the GPLv3 motion.

_At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the 
motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to finalize the transition from 
GPLv2 to GPLv3 for the Sugar core libraries (Sugar Activity developers 
are still free to choose whatever Libre license they prefer for their 
work.) See [2]. I second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.__

__
__Approve.__

__Tony Anderson__
__
_

_Approve._

__

_Sameer__
_

_Approve._

_
_
_BTW I'm worried about the fact that the Sugar-Web part (and so 
Sugarizer too) use the Apache 2.0 Licence. _

_I'm not a specialist but what imply a Licence migration ?_
_
_
_  Lionel._
_
_
_+1 para GPLv3 motion_
_
_
_
___
__Lic. José Miguel García__
__Montevideo - Uruguay_
_
__Approved!_
_
_
_Claudia_

Today at 8:04PM (ET) would be the deadline for the GPLv3 motion. (May 13 
@ 8:04PM ET)


So this vote was 6 in favor and one abstention.

Tony

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

[IAEP] Yoruba I18n

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson
At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we discussed the 
motion submitted by Chris Leonard to fund a program for translation of 
Sugar into Yoruba, one of the three main languages spoken in Nigeria. I 
second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.


Members of the oversight board, please reply to this email solicitation 
for a vote on the following motion.


[text of the motion follows - this email from Walter was posted on IAEP]

Approve.

Tony Anderson

Approve.

Sameer



Disagree.

I don't see any evidence how Yoruba localization could increase the size 
of the Sugar community. I think we mix here two things:

- a localization project without any clear need on the field,
- a legitimate wish to thank an active and loyal contributor (Samson)
I can't be agree with the first one (including within the Trip Advisor 
deal): it's time and money for nothing.
I'm agree with the second one but may be we could imagine other ways to 
do that, i.e. ask Samson to work on more useful tasks. For example help 
on initiative like the Tony one to invent an auto localization process.


Best regards from France.

  Lionel.


+1 para Yoruba i18n motion

Sugiero que para futuras propuestas se especifique el impacto que tendrá 
en la comunidad. Es decir, cuáles y cuántos serán los beneficiarios de 
la traducción, y si esto ampliará significativamente el alcance de Sugar.


Saludos


___
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay

+1 to the motion.

Following Lionel's point, I suggest we create a list of languages and 
decide which ones are a priority (based on the potential impact) and 
look for people to do the job.


Claudia





Today at 7:38PM (ET) would be the deadline for the i18n motion.

So the result on this motion is five in favor, one opposed and one 
abstention.


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

Re: [IAEP] Voting on GPLv3 motion

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 1 July 2016 at 01:32, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> This is what I have been able to find regarding the GPLv3 motion.

AWESOME! Thanks for posting these - I will update the Decision page
with links to your emails and these results soon :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi Tony

On 1 July 2016 at 00:46, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
> Your motion has never been presented to the Board.

I feel very frustrated with your proposition that members can not
present motions to the board.

You see, of the 6 motions that have passed since I joined the project,
one of them was presented to the board by me, via email, Walter simply
added it to the agenda for the upcoming SLOBs meeting:

-- Forwarded message --
From: Walter Bender 
Date: 2 May 2016 at 09:43
Subject: Re: [IAEP] laboratoriosazucar.org domain renewal ($)
To: Sean DALY , Dave Crossland 
Cc: systems , "OLPC para usuarios,
docentes, voluntarios y administradores" ,
SLOBs , sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org, iaep



I will add this to the agenda for Friday. It has my support, FWIW.

-walter

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Sean DALY  wrote:
>
> If there are funds, I support the idea.
>
> Any domain name registration should go through the SFC, who are set up to 
> renew & protect them.
>
> If the name has expired, the SFC could register it directly with their 
> existing provider.
>
> Probably the best thing to do is to have it point to sl.o and if we ever have 
> a Spanish version, to that variant.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'd like to submit a motions to SLOBs:
>>
>> 1. I propose SLOBs approve a motion to pay back the $34.34 cost of renewing 
>> for 2 years the laboratoriosazucar.org domain that will be made out of 
>> pocket by a member this month.
>>
>> (Sugar's most popular language of use is Spanish and having a spanish domain 
>> name seems like a great idea and it would be a pity to lose the registration 
>> to spammers.)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
-- End of Forwarded message --


Similarly, this motion was written by me, Walter posted it exactly to
the SLOBs and IEAP lists, and it was seconded by a board member, José
Miguel - http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16767.html
- yet no public votes were posted.

I've presented several other motions, including the motion you claim
was never presented, by posting them to the SLOBS list and the IAEP
list.

I did so following the lead of long-time members such as Caryl and
Sebastian and Laura, who have also been presenting their own motions -
apparently also unaware that members could not do so.

You've claimed last month that members can not present motions to the
board, and when I have countered this claim, you have ignored me.

Making the claim and counter claim again, you've been unable so far to
provide me with any actual documentation of your claim.

I can present two pieces of documentation in addition to my anecdotal
evidence above:

1. For the last 7 years
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes has had an open
solicitation for anyone to email the SLOBs list with topics has been
open:

"Email slobs at lists dot sugarlabs dot org to propose a topic queue
to be brought up."

In the March 2016 SLOB meeting there was a motion to restrict email
voting to 1 week from the date the motion is posted and this requires
Board members' email votes to arrive within 168 hours of an original
motion being posted, but it does not mention that the email posting
the motion must be from SLOB members only.

Therefore I think it is reasonable for any member to assume that
emailing the SLOBs list is a valid presentation of a motion.

Checkin the history of that wiki page, it seems that this open
solicitation of motions began on July 11 2010 when Mel Chua edited the
SLOB Minutes wiki page to add the text "Email slobs at lists dot
sugarlabs dot org to propose a time, if you want the topic queue to be
brought up." 
(https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FMinutes=revision=54205=53687)

Before that, Aleksey Lim edit the same page on December 1 2010 to
"Make proposing new questions for an upcoming meeting less strict"
(https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FMinutes=revision=59838=59835)
which I believe also clarifies the intent of the SLOB to allow members
to post motions.

2. With 
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FNext_meeting=revision=99130=99129
I see that on the agenda for the board meeting later today is a new
motion, which has not been posted to the IEAP list:

"to have motions submitted by oversight board members"

Given that this motion is only now being posted, I think an assumption
that until that motion passes, members are allowed to post motions, is
reasonable. Otherwise, why is this motion needed?


So, of the 7 board members, only you have asserted that members can
not present motions, and one board member, Walter, has been adding
motions posted by members to the board's