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

Hi On 4 June 2016 at 03:35, Tony Anderson wrote: > This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are not for > the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions. > What do you think the purposes of the board meetings are, then? > A majority of the Board members

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

On 4 June 2016 at 15:25, Walter Bender wrote: > I am all for raising funds but we need to articulate the reason why we > need them. > To pay for labour to achieve goals, such as the existing translations and finance manager roles and perhaps others in the future; to

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

I am all for raising funds but we need to articulate the reason why we need them. On Jun 4, 2016 2:29 PM, "Dave Crossland" wrote: > Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to > enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or > other

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

Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or other means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the Financial Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will show progress

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

Hi On 4 June 2016 at 07:48, Adam Holt wrote: > As this is a very thoughtful proposal, I contacted SFConservancy's general > counsel to verify it is legal given 501(c)3 non-profit laws can be strict, > and he emphasized 2 things: > > (1) no tangible benefits may be offered in

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

t a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160604/95917160/attachment-0001.html> -- Me

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

On 3 June 2016 at 22:42, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > My personal answer (at least in past private discussions) has been to end > support sometime in 2020. > Thanks for the thoughtful explanation of the 2020 date :) I think 1/1/2020 is good. How can we find out how many XO-1

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

On 4 June 2016 at 09:35, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > when I was discussing this with Peter a while back Peter who? :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org

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

I too would support this motion. If people want to be SLOBs they should consider community proposals not just their own ideas. El 03/06/16 a las 17:59, Dave Crossland escribió: > Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the > current practice of requiring a seconding before

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

If I was a SLOB I would support this motion. The passivity of the SLOBs is disappointing. It is better to vote and fail, than to linger. El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió: > Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB > meetings: the chair will confirm the

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

Yes it is possible to use external batteries with XOs. But at what point will the costs of distributing those batteries along with spare/recycled parts make the marginal cost of distributing modern, cheap, disposable computers worth it? I should probably note that the 2020 deadline originally

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

Could a small external battery pak, like we see so many of these days, be used to power an XO? You would need a suitable cable. Caryl Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 3, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dave Crossland

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

;D I guess it was too close before the meeting, so no SLOBs had time to read... 2016-06-04 5:00 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > > On 3 June 2016 at 14:55, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> On 3 June 2016 at 00:46, Laura Vargas wrote: >> >>> I propose

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

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Tony Anderson wrote: > I second the motion and approve it. > I hope we all work together to find a way to compromise, but in any case my opinion is already well-known, as stated a month ago: Mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently

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

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

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

We did not have time to take action on two motions at yesterday's meeting. Please review the motion below. If an oversight board seconds the motion, then we can bring it up for a vote by email. regards. -walter Motion regarding GSoC mentoring stipends Motion: Whereas it is the general policy

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

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