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

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson wrote: > You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion > (email or otherwise) This is simply, factually, false. In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html Walter notes that

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

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 01:05, Laura Vargas wrote: > 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. I sympathise.

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

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 11:35, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is > "precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I > am proposing it I am happy you and Seb agree that clearing the

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

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 10:47, Walter Bender wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva >> wrote: >>> El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió: >>> >>> Motion:

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 11:56, Sean DALY wrote: > an agreed upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't > likely need to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach > has been transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years, >

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 11:41, Adam Holt wrote: > it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive Director > (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these kinds of > high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible apprised of > deliberations -- while

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 10:49, Walter Bender wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland wrote: >>> >>> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent >>> to

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Digest 2016-06-21

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
Thanks for posting Walter! This is all good news :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Sugar Digest 2016-06-21

2016-06-21 Thread Walter Bender
== Sugar Digest == 1. Marvin Minsky was fond of saying that there is nothing more dangerous than when a roomful of people all agree with each other. We don't have to worry about that in the Sugar community!!! Marvin also observed that "it's very important to have friends who can solve problems

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Tony Anderson
Hi, Adam I don't think this is relevant to this motion. Clearly, if such a negotiation were to happen, the Board could move to consider the matter in 'executive session'. In the meantime, there is no reason not to make votes public (and the discussion of them in the meetings which is already

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Sean DALY
I agree with Adam's statemen. There is another possible scenario: an agreed upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't likely need to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach has been transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years, but the

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Adam Holt
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of >> SLOB. >> >> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland

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

2016-06-21 Thread Caryl Bigenho
Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is "precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I am proposing it Caryl Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Sebastian Silva > wrote: > > > >>

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

2016-06-21 Thread Sebastian Silva
El 21/06/16 a las 09:47, Walter Bender escribió: > > While I appreciate that such a mechanism might be useful in cleaning > the pipes, I think that we really want to take advantage of the > meetings for discussions. It was my hope that discussion about motions > could be largely held before hand

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

2016-06-21 Thread Walter Bender
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Laura Vargas wrote: > > > 2016-06-09 6:21 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender : > >> Laura, >> >> Do you know when in November this meeting is? It was not apparent to me >> looking at the website. >> >> > Walter, > > Are you

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

2016-06-21 Thread Walter Bender
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi > > I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of > SLOB. > > On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they

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

2016-06-21 Thread Walter Bender
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi > > I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of > SLOB. > > On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva > wrote: > >> If I was a SLOB I would support this motion. The

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

2016-06-21 Thread Walter Bender
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi > > I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of > SLOB. > > On 3 June 2016 at 02:46, Laura Vargas wrote: > >> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision

Re: [IAEP] 172 XO-1s for $24 each (+ freight) $4,000 total

2016-06-21 Thread Walter Bender
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Laura Vargas wrote: > > > 2016-06-13 19:05 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender : > >> I have to say I with Samuel Greenfeld on this one. There are lots of >> potential issues with these machines (depending upon how they have