Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Claudia Urrea]

Agree with Tony. The vision is about the goal we are trying to accomplish
for children (and teachers) around the world, but the mechanism or
strategies the organization needs to put in place in order to get there.

Claudia (re-sent message)

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Tony Anderson 
wrote:

> Hi, Laura
>
> Unfortunately, this is not my vision of Sugar Labs or Sugar. I see Sugar
> as an educational opportunity provided to users of the OLPC XO
> and others. Naturally, it takes software engineers to develop and maintain
> this software, but the vision must be about the result - Sugar and the
> benefits if offers in an educational setting.
>
>
> Tony
>
>
> On 06/19/2016 05:06 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
> SLOB.
>
> On 3 June 2016 at 14:25, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement:
>>
>> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project
>> of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part
>> of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers
>> around the world who are passionate about providing educational
>> opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar
>> Labs(R) is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate
>> development."
>>
>> To the new proposed text:
>>
>> "Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
>> develop and deploy high-quality Free/Libre Software that facilitates
>> self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
>> of all continents."
>>
>> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
>>
>> - Current Vision Statement is not wrong – but certainly is not inspiring
>> or unique.
>> - Current Vision fails to define what we do as an output: we provide
>> infrastructure so that a community of people can produce and deliver
>> software to children.
>> - Current Vision fails to identify our unique "selling"
>> points: self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young
>> children of all continents.
>>
>> Blessings and thank you very much for your attention.
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>>
>> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
>> IRC kaametza
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>>
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing 
> listSLOBs@lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Laura Vargas]

2016-06-21 12:46 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

> On 21 June 2016 at 00:41, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> > I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I
> > proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the
> Sugar
> > Project's Translation Fund?
> >
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html
>
> Hope this is OK:
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FDecisions=revision=99084=99083
>
> > I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look
> > like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the
> > motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds.
>
> Are those motions listed in
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions ?
>

I'm basically refering to the same Motions you just add.

I confess I'm not motivated to propose any new Motions to current Board as
none has even made it to a meeting, none has get seconded and besides Tony,
until today, I have 0 feedback from all other SLOBs.

 ;D

Regards and thanks for your help!

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sebastian Silva]

El 20/06/16 a las 23:42, Claudia Urrea escribió:

> I thought we have solved the issue, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
No, you need to unsubscribe claudia@laptop and subscribe your new
address for it to get fixed.

When subscribers change their email addresses, usually they do this
themselves. Nobody requested list administrators to intercede.

> I added my gmail account to iaep and that should solve the problem. I
am not registered to any other list.

At Dave's request, I went into the admin interface and found you have
now unsubscribed your claudia@laptop address. But I don't see your gmail
address so I guess you still need to confirm your subscription. Please do.

Thanks in advance!

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 00:38, Sebastian Silva  wrote:
> Then it got rejected because she is subscribed with a different address.

Ah yes, I identified this problem with Claudia's email before.

Since you are an IAEP list admin, please can you just fix it? :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 00:41, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I
> proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the Sugar
> Project's Translation Fund?
>
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html

Hope this is OK:

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FDecisions=revision=99084=99083

> I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look
> like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the
> motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds.

Are those motions listed in
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions ?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sebastian Silva]

Then it got rejected because she is subscribed with a different address.

El 20/06/16 a las 23:41, Dave Crossland escribió:

> On 21 June 2016 at 00:32, Sebastian Silva  wrote:
>> We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future please
>> remember to copy the list in your replies as we are very much interested in
>> your opinions.
> The mail from Claudia was sent to the lists:
>
> http://imgur.com/rm2pBCf

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 00:32, Sebastian Silva  wrote:
> We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future please
> remember to copy the list in your replies as we are very much interested in
> your opinions.

The mail from Claudia was sent to the lists:

http://imgur.com/rm2pBCf
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Laura Vargas]

Hi Dave,

2016-06-21 11:37 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
> Hi
>
> On 20 June 2016 at 02:43, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
>> I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with
>> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14.
>
>
> Walter added those; I've only maintained the new motions.
>
> Its a wiki, you can edit it, so if you'd like the old motions in 2014 and
> earlier to be numbered, please do it :)
>
>
>> However, a quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on
>> the motions.
>>
>
> I think this is a misreading; please pay attention to the comments in
> brackets at the end of each motion, recording the votes visible to members,
> where you can see that 6 of the last 7 motions were not seconded, which I
> can not interpret as "decisive action."
>
>
>> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as
>> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
>>
>
> Check the history; I have done so.
>
>
>> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting
>> public log).
>
>
> I have done so.
>
>
>> For pending motions, use the words by the member who proposed it, with
>> their name and the date submitted (or last amended).
>>
>
> Its a wiki, you can edit it. Please add the names.
>
>
>> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not
>> made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).
>>
>
> I believe those motions were posted via email to be voted on at the board
> meeting, so while the board didn't have time to second or vote on them in
> the meeting - due to the inefficient way the meetings are conducted - they
> were posted and thus stand as failed.
>
> But I have removed them, since they are duplicate motions.
>
>
>> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting
>> dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3,
>
>
>> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from
>> the current voting process, keeping focus.'
>>
>> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be
>> made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
>> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no
>> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give
>> for failed motions.
>>
>
> The dates in the headlines are the dates the motions were required to have
> been voted on; if they didn't get a quorum of votes on that date, they
> automatically failed.
>
> I've added an explanation about this to the top of the page :)
>
>
>> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions.
>> All motions are shown as agreed or failed.
>>
>
> That's correct; no motions have been posted within the last 7 days that I
> am aware of, but, since SLOBs email list is used for posting motions, it is
> possible there were motions that I as a member am not aware of.
>
>
I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I
proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the Sugar
Project's Translation Fund?

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html

I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look
like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the
motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds.

Thanks in advance.

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



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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sebastian Silva]

Hi Claudia!

Welcome to writing in Sugar Labs's lists. Please note replies are not
"to all" by default (much like regular email).

We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future
please remember to copy the list in your replies as we are very much
interested in your opinions.

Regards,

Sebastian


El 20/06/16 a las 23:28, Dave Crossland escribió:
> Hi Claudia!
>
> On 20 June 2016 at 14:04, Claudia Urrea  wrote:

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Claudia!

On 20 June 2016 at 14:04, Claudia Urrea  wrote:
>
> I think the wiki page summarizes the status of the motions, but we have to
> find a way to link to the discussion or process. Should we number them? or
> code them in a way that it helps the process?

The motions are numbered, eg the first motion of the year is 2016-01, and so on.

The discussions are spread out on various email threads and IRC meetings.

I think using loom.io could help keep the discussions in one place.

>> "to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both
>> the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists."
>>
>> This was - as far as I know - not seconded or discussed by most SLOB
>> members.
>>
>> What do you think about this motion?
>
> I replied to Sameer's email. I agreed with the process he recommended.

Could you be more specific about which email from Sameer you are
referring to? I can't find anything from you replying to Sameer,
neither in my own email archive nor on mail-archive.com

> I like the idea of having a member of SLOBs sponsor a motion.

Currently motions require a member of SLOBs to second a motion, before
others are required to vote on it.

> I think it is
> confusing to have anyone in the SL community propose motions. What do you
> think?

I think the purpose of the board is to serve the community, so
disallowing members from posting motions is for me moving away from
that purpose.

From time to time members want to get the board to approve their
ideas, or at least to give them feedback on those ideas.

As a member, I want to see feedback from each board member about each
motion, even if this is a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote without additional
context.

>>> Motions are posted and by the time I read them, they have received
>>> several comments and have evolved into something different.
>>
>> I kindly disagree with this characterisation :)
>
> I did not say this is bad, but I think some ideas are worth considering and
> discussing before they become a motion that needs to be considered for a
> vote.

I think voting should be "cheap" in the sense that it should be quick,
easy, efficient, etc.

In the case that motions have been openly drafted, there has been
discussion that died down and then at the board meeting there were
surprising objections that could have been raised earlier. Please
refer to Walter's email following the last board meeting where he
acknowledged the problems with the last meeting.

In the case that motions have been posted without open drafting, there
has been very little discussion.

I think that if the discussion happens after a motion is posted, and a
motion fails to be agreed, that's fine - then the discussion will
indicate how it can be improved and redrafted and reposted.

My current frustration is mainly that there is little or no feedback
on motions. If I or another member thinks something is important and
posts it as a motion, not just an idea to chat about on the list, then
I expect to see consideration of the ideas in the motion.

> I don't think all ideas need to be a motions.

I agree that not all ideas need to be motions.

Could you specify which motions you believe did not require the
board's dis/approval?

>> The way I see it, motions are posted in good faith by the Member who posts
>> them, and by the time you read them, they ought to have received many
>> comments, but those comments do not change the motion in any way. The
>> comments may influence each board member's position to second the motion or
>> not, and to vote for or against the motion. If the motion does not pass, the
>> comments can help the poster to refine their idea and post a new motion.
>>
>> I am curious why you think comment on a motion change it? :)
>
> Again, I am saying the idea evolves into something more interesting when
> they receive feedback. Should we still vote for the initial idea or should
> be refine it?

I think it should be voted on, even if the vote is to pro-actively
disagree with it.

> What is the best way to do this?

I think that the best way to do this is for members to post motions
that they have worked hard to figure out, and for SLOBS to vote for
the initial idea to mark it as disagreed with specific reasons, so
that if it fails, it can be refined and a new motion posted - and this
can continue until the motion is posted or SLOBs categorically rejects
the motion.

Since there is a 7 day voting period for each motion, it is unlikely
that many motions will be posted in the same period that are
'competing' on the same topic - but even if there are, the best one
can be passed and then if an even better one is posted later, it can
be passed and overrule the earlier one.

>> I do not know what else I can do to help SLOBs quickly move to the
>> approval/disapproval process; I have been providing as much administrative
>> assistance as I can, and offering my best suggestions.
>
> We may want to refine the process, as proposed by Sameer, and have 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

On 20 June 2016 at 14:11, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> On 20 June 2016 at 11:17, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> > On 20 June 2016 at 03:23, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree completely with this statement as a vision for Sugar Labs.
> >
> > You already said that, but I am concerned with your position on the
> > original. Laura quoted this in her email above, and it is on the wiki at
> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Mission
> >
> > "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of
> > Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of
> > the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around
> > the world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to
> > children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by
> > donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development."
> >
> > Do you have any issue with this statement?
>
> It describes what we do. A mission statement usually describes the
> organizations goal, what it is trying to accomplish.

Please write what you think the statement should be as a reply to this email.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

On 20 June 2016 at 12:00, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
> Could someone find and post the current vision statement? After Wed when
> they finally come to hook up my slow, but very expensive, Internet
> connection, I'll be able to comment on the vision statement and possible
> additions and changes.

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016 currently says:



Sugar is high-quality software for learning, especially by younger children.

Sugar is designed for use by people who do not yet have regular or
reliable internet access.

The Sugar Desktop runs on inexpensive desktop and laptop computers
that have modest capacity, such as the XO-1 "$100 Laptop" developed by
One Laptop per Child (OLPC).

A web-based version is under development for tablets and phones,
called Sugarizer.

Sugar Activities are applications that run in Sugarizer or the Sugar Desktop.

Sugar Activities encourage learning through self-discovery and
encourage collaboration, expression, and reflection.

Sugar realises the educational vision of Seymour Papert and Alan Kay
by providing a low floor and no ceiling.

Every Sugar Activity respects every user's freedom to run, study,
modify and redistribute it using software licenses compatible with the
GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 3 or later.

Sugar development began in 2006 at OLPC, and in 2009 Sugar Labs was
established in service to the Sugar community as a volunteer-led and
non-profit project.

In 2016 the Sugar community is global, and we at Sugar Labs aspire to
include users and contributors in all countries, all languages, and
all cultures.

We facilitate knowledge and software sharing among all people; we
relate the software freedom movement to education.

We provide plans for how to best use Sugar to improve learning,
intended for individual parents and teachers all the way to national
policy.

We raise funds and use them to accelerate the progress of our Members,
enabling them to access laptops, travel, and more.

We make things to think with.

Join us.










https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Mission_proposal_2016 currently says:



To be a welcoming global community where anyone can learn how to
develop high-quality libre software that facilitates learning through
self-discovery and collaboration among young children of all
continents, and to make that software easily available to learners and
teachers.



The mission of Sugar Labs is to produce, distribute, and support the
use of the Sugar learning platform; it is a support base and gathering
place for the community of educators and developers to create, extend,
teach, and learn with the Sugar learning platform.

Sugar is based on the following principles:

everyone is a teacher and a learner;
humans by their nature are social beings;
humans by their nature are expressive;
you learn through doing; and
love is a better master than duty.

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 20 June 2016 at 02:43, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with
> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14.


Walter added those; I've only maintained the new motions.

Its a wiki, you can edit it, so if you'd like the old motions in 2014 and
earlier to be numbered, please do it :)


> However, a quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on
> the motions.
>

I think this is a misreading; please pay attention to the comments in
brackets at the end of each motion, recording the votes visible to members,
where you can see that 6 of the last 7 motions were not seconded, which I
can not interpret as "decisive action."


> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as
> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
>

Check the history; I have done so.


> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting
> public log).


I have done so.


> For pending motions, use the words by the member who proposed it, with
> their name and the date submitted (or last amended).
>

Its a wiki, you can edit it. Please add the names.


> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not
> made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).
>

I believe those motions were posted via email to be voted on at the board
meeting, so while the board didn't have time to second or vote on them in
the meeting - due to the inefficient way the meetings are conducted - they
were posted and thus stand as failed.

But I have removed them, since they are duplicate motions.


> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting
> dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3,


> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from
> the current voting process, keeping focus.'
>
> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be
> made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no
> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give
> for failed motions.
>

The dates in the headlines are the dates the motions were required to have
been voted on; if they didn't get a quorum of votes on that date, they
automatically failed.

I've added an explanation about this to the top of the page :)


> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions.
> All motions are shown as agreed or failed.
>

That's correct; no motions have been posted within the last 7 days that I
am aware of, but, since SLOBs email list is used for posting motions, it is
possible there were motions that I as a member am not aware of.

-- 
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...

[Dave Crossland]

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
> motion as passed.
>

Since it passed it says:

AGREED MOTION 2016-34


Could you be specific on instances where the Board voted privately? Since
> most of this activity occurs during Board meetings which are public, and
> which you frequently attend - I see nothing private there.
>

"Most of this activity occurs during Board meetings" is factually false,
because motions can be posted and deliberated and voted on via email for 7
days after they are posted, irrespective of that 7 day period coinciding
with a monthly board meeting, and most recent motions have been posted via
email and not seen any consideration visible to members from most board
members.

The problem is not that the board has voted completely privately, but that
the board appears not to have voted at all - yet there is no way of knowing
because votes _may_ be cast privately. In the last motion that was voted
on, the GSOC one, Walter told me a private vote and I accept this on good
faith but it is not ideal. Thus my latest motion.


> So you must be referring to email votes. These are and should be rare.
>

I have no idea why you think that.


> On the Oversight Board/decisions page, you should show motions decided by
> email vote. The only two I remember were the Quispe motion and the GSOC
> motion. I don't remember anything private in those votes.
>

Since you are on the SLOB list I am not surprised, but since I am not, how
can I know?

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

On Jun 20, 2016 11:57 AM, "Sean DALY"  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project
of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part
of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers
around the world who are passionate about providing educational
opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar
Labs(R) is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate
development."
>
>
>
> To be clear, this has been our PR "About..." boilerplate since 2009. A
Mission statement would be more concise.

What was the mission statement since 2009?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Caryl Bigenho]

Tony is correct. Motions A and B have not been voted on yet. I am hoping they 
will be at the July meeting. Watch for my finalized versions later this week 
when I finally get internet at my MT home.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> 
> Hi, Dave
> 
>> On 06/20/2016 05:20 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
>> Adam asked me to diligently maintain the list of SLOB decisions going
>> forwards, that Walter had put together from archives, at
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions
> 
> I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with 
> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14. However, a
> quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on the motions.
> 
> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as 
> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting 
> public log). For pending motions, use the words by the member who
> proposed it, with their name and the date submitted (or last amended).
> 
> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not made 
> to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).
> 
> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting dates. 
> According to the approved motion 2016-3,
> 
> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from the 
> current voting process, keeping focus.'
> 
> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be made 
> on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no 
> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give
> for failed motions.
> 
> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions. All 
> motions are shown as agreed or failed.
> 
> Tony
> ___
> 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] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

It describes what we do. A mission statement usually describes the 
organizations goal, what it is trying to accomplish.


Tony

On 06/20/2016 05:17 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:


Hi

On 20 June 2016 at 03:23, Tony Anderson > wrote:



I disagree completely with this statement as a vision for Sugar Labs.


You already said that, but I am concerned with your position on the 
original. Laura quoted this in her email above, and it is on the wiki 
at https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Mission


"About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member 
project of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. 
Originally part of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs 
coordinates volunteers around the world who are passionate about 
providing educational opportunities to children through the Sugar 
Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by donations and is 
seeking funding to accelerate development."


Do you have any issue with this statement?

--
Cheers
Dave


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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Caryl Bigenho]

Could someone find and post the current vision statement? After Wed when they 
finally come to hook up my slow, but very expensive, Internet connection, I'll 
be able to comment on the vision statement and possible additions and changes.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
>> On 20 June 2016 at 03:23, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>> 
>> I disagree completely with this statement as a vision for Sugar Labs.
> 
> You already said that, but I am concerned with your position on the original. 
> Laura quoted this in her email above, and it is on the wiki at 
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Mission
> 
> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of 
> Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of the 
> One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around the 
> world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to 
> children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by 
> donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development."
> 
> Do you have any issue with this statement?
> 
> -- 
> Cheers
> Dave
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Sean DALY]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project
> of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part
> of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers
> around the world who are passionate about providing educational
> opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar
> Labs(R) is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate
> development."



To be clear, this has been our PR "About..." boilerplate since 2009. A
Mission statement would be more concise.

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 20 June 2016 at 03:23, Tony Anderson  wrote:

>
> I disagree completely with this statement as a vision for Sugar Labs.
>

You already said that, but I am concerned with your position on the
original. Laura quoted this in her email above, and it is on the wiki at
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Mission

"About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of
Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of
the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around
the world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to
children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by
donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development."

Do you have any issue with this statement?

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[José Miguel García]

Hola!
Estoy de acuerdo con lo que plantean Tony, Claudia.
Entiendo que el foco debe estar en las nuevas formas de aprender de los
niños.

Saludos


___
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay

2016-06-20 4:23 GMT-03:00 Tony Anderson :

> Hi, Dave
>
> This email is a clear example of the confusion we are having. You describe
> it as a mission statement (not a vision statement).
> However, your title describes an 'update' to the current Sugar Labs vision
> statement. Could you provide the text of what you believe is the current
> Sugar Labs vision statement that is to be updated?
>
> This is the version I was responding to, which seems to be a re-write by
> you of Laura's statement:
>
> "Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
> develop and deploy high-quality Free/Libre Software that facilitates
> self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
> of all continents."
>
> I disagree completely with this statement as a vision for Sugar Labs. This
> makes us sound like a community for training adult software developers. Our
> vision needs to be of the educational advantages which we want our
> product,Sugar to provide. This product is designed to facilitate learning
> by young (grade school) learners based on ideas from Seymour Papert and
> Alan Kay.
>
> I agree strongly that work with and on Sugar can lead to learning
> technical computer skills. I try to emphasize that in presentations and
> workshops that in the XO, the user has free access to all of the latest
> software: using the command line, building scripts, programming in Python,
> developing web sites with HTML, CSS, and Javascript, developing
> administrative skills in networking and system maintenance.
> However, this is not the *ra**ison d'etre* for Sugar.
>
> Tony
>
> On 06/20/2016 05:29 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>
> On 19 June 2016 at 13:20, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, this is not my vision of Sugar Labs or Sugar. I see Sugar
>> as an educational opportunity provided to users of the OLPC XO
>> and others. Naturally, it takes software engineers to develop and
>> maintain this software, but the vision must be about the result - Sugar and
>> the
>> benefits if offers in an educational setting.
>>
>
> Do you think the existing mission statement that Laura quoted above
> conveys this result adequately?
>
> I am unsure if you think the mission should be changed, or kept the same.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

On 06/20/2016 05:20 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

Adam asked me to diligently maintain the list of SLOB decisions going
forwards, that Walter had put together from archives, at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions


I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with 
2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14. However, a

quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on the motions.

One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as 
'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board 
meeting public log). For pending motions, use the words by the member who

proposed it, with their name and the date submitted (or last amended).

In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not 
made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).


The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting 
dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3,


'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from 
the current voting process, keeping focus.'


I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be 
made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no 
recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give

for failed motions.

If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions. 
All motions are shown as agreed or failed.


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