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

[Dave Crossland]

On 1 July 2016 at 07:06, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
> We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes by
> email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).

I've heard that before, and this seems proven sure to fail. But I
don't think I can make the case for improving the boards procedure any
more strongly.

Why each and every board member does not wish to engage on improving
the board's processes is a mystery to me.

Well, thanks again for posting the previous email votes, I'll update
the Decisions page to link to them :)
___
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...

[Tony Anderson]

Dave

We got it. In the future, we will take greater care to cross-post votes 
by email (hopefully rare since the meeting itself is public).


Tony

On 07/01/2016 12:57 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 1 July 2016 at 05:45, Tony Anderson  wrote:

You need to distinguish between encouraging members to propose actions to be
taken by the Board and a motion made at a Board meeting by a member of the
Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members.

I got it :) Since motions made at a Board meeting by a member of the
Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members, are voted on
in private, would be willing to post a motion to improve the operation
of the project that requires votes to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB
lists in order to be counted as valid?
.



___
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...

[Dave Crossland]

On 1 July 2016 at 05:45, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
> You need to distinguish between encouraging members to propose actions to be
> taken by the Board and a motion made at a Board meeting by a member of the
> Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members.

I got it :) Since motions made at a Board meeting by a member of the
Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members, are voted on
in private, would be willing to post a motion to improve the operation
of the project that requires votes to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB
lists in order to be counted as valid?
___
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...

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

You need to distinguish between encouraging members to propose actions 
to be taken by the Board and a motion made at a Board meeting by a 
member of the Board, seconded and put to a vote of the Board members.


Tony



___
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...

[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 

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

[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