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.
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.
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> 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.)
-- 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://firstname.lastname@example.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
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
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
"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
Before that, Aleksey Lim edit the same page on December 1 2010 to
"Make proposing new questions for an upcoming meeting less strict"
which I believe also clarifies the intent of the SLOB to allow members
to post motions.
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