Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-16 Thread Laura Vargas
2017-09-16 7:42 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender : > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Laura Vargas > wrote: > >> Walter, >> >> I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to >> address legal issues to Conservancy. >> >> The

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-16 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Laura Vargas wrote: > Walter, > > I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to > address legal issues to Conservancy. > > The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want to address > Conservancy was to

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Laura Vargas
Walter, I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to address legal issues to Conservancy. The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want to address Conservancy was to just ask Adam (Sugar Labs rep to SFC) to make a question to Tony. The procedure you (SLOB)

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Laura Vargas wrote: > Walter, Adam, > > Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to > Tony in the first place? > > Can you please clarify. > Tony asked for the opinion of the oversight board to several

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Martin Dengler
> On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské wrote: > > > +1 for the motion. > > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay. Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the wiki had been updated already (not by me) so

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

2017-06-03 Thread Samson Goddy
Hello all, It is more than 24hrs since walter requested this motion should be seconded, so that voting can begin. Sorry for thinking this way, but is it that the community don't want to support the Bordeaux trip at all? This is the second time i am making a proposal. First, was for me and Ibiam

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

2017-06-03 Thread Samson Goddy
Okay, i heard you. I think me replying to some statements will create more discussion, so i wouldn't. Could it be seconded, as walter suggested so that it could be voted upon? SG On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Adam Holt wrote: > If board members cannot feed themselves in

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

2017-06-03 Thread Adam Holt
If board members cannot feed themselves in their own country, and additionally Sugar Labs is being asked to create my-favorite-hotel in my-favorite-neighborhood welfare handouts for its own board members in their own countries, we have a far deeper long-term problem on our hands here, that will

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

2017-06-03 Thread Samson Goddy
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Adam Holt wrote: > On Jun 3, 2017 8:37 AM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > > Please excuse the top post. > > I'd like to bring some clarity to the discussion of this motion. As most > of you know, Sugar Labs is a member project

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

2017-06-03 Thread Adam Holt
On Jun 3, 2017 8:37 AM, "Walter Bender" wrote: Please excuse the top post. I'd like to bring some clarity to the discussion of this motion. As most of you know, Sugar Labs is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy. The Conservancy has well-established

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] SLOB motion

2017-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
Please excuse the top post. I'd like to bring some clarity to the discussion of this motion. As most of you know, Sugar Labs is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy. The Conservancy has well-established guidelines for travel, and the travel plans in the proposal accompanying the