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] [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] [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] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Claudia!

On 19 June 2016 at 13:38, Claudia Urrea  wrote:

>
> I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass,
> pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend
> on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.
>

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've been doing the best I can, but since currently Members have no way of
knowing when motions pass or fail - because email votes are done on the
SLOBs list which is not available to members, with good reason - then I
posted the motion on June 7:

"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?

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 :)

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? :)

Could we call them something different before they have received enough
> comments and have been refined, so they can quickly move to approval
> process?
>

In the case of Caryl's finance manager motion, and Lionel and my vision
statement motion, a draft was posted on Google Docs or the SL wiki weeks in
advance of the SLOB meeting with many calls for comments on the draft.

Despite this, the SLOBs do not actively engage in the drafting, and bring
up issues at the meeting, blocking other motions from even being named at
the meeting.

So I find the SLOBs meetings very frustrating, because motions that have an
open drafting period are ignored, and motions that are posted outside the
7-day window before a SLOB monthly meeting and can be commented on via
email are ignored.

To help SLOBs quickly move to the approval/disapproval process, I posted 2
motions on June 3:

"to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB meetings: the
chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will make any
announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will announce
the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB member will
announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the motion; the
chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are voted on; the
chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of any topic
until the meeting ends at the time scheduled."

and

"to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current practice
of requiring a seconding before voting."

These were also both - as far as I know - neither seconded nor discussed by
most SLOB members.

What do you think about these motions?

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.

-- 
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] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Adam Holt]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal,
> this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already
> approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the
> Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's
> discretion as well. Nonetheless, for some reason or other, the SFC seems to
> think that every outlay requires explicit approval from the entire board.
> Further, it is not like this was an attempt to blind-side or circumvent the
> board. I brought this up several months ago, but we have not managed to
> vote on it.
>
> Finally, I find the "wait-until-the-last-moment-to-object" style of
> discourse to be highly unprofessional. I reiterate, this has been on the
> table for months as has been the opportunity for feedback and discussion.
>

My own hope is that Sugar Labs seek a new tone of governance, putting aside
baseless ad hominem attacks against on its own board members and
hard-working sponsoring organization (SFConservancy.org), who happen to
prefer more transparent and understandable financials.

My hope is that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard's monthly blog
(and similar) will be just the beginning to show us all this upfront,
honorable, inclusive-of-all-kinds-of-people (even accountants, if we are to
grow this movement) approach is in fact possible beginning in 2016.

-walter
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Lionel Laské 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 for the remark of Adam.
>> +1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.
>>
>>Lionel.
>>
>> 2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :
>>
>>> I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
>>> unprofessional, in all instances.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
>>> that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
>>> situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
>>> happening and why.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Chris Leonard <
>>> cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
 the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
 Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
 English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
 Community Manager activities.

 Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
 I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
 requests.  It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
 when someone is sent to a conference on company time.  This practice
 provides a further return on investment.  Not only are your ideas
 shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
 conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
 funding.

 cjl

 On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Walter Bender 
 wrote:
 > I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we
 got
 > side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
 >
 > Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción
 e
 > interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima.
 The
 > total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to
 $168.88.
 > The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with
 Aymara
 > i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
 > region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter
 Bender
 > as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip
 Advisor grant
 > and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's
 report is
 > at [2].
 >
 > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing
 Sugar
 > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias
 del Perú
 > meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
 >
 > -walter
 >
 > [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
 > [2]
 >
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing
 >
 > -- Forwarded message --
 > From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
 > 
 > Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
 > Subject: approval details for Quispe-Chambi trip expenses? (was: Fwd:
 > Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
 > To: su...@sfconservancy.org
 >
 >
 > I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
 > Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
 >
 

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

[Dave Crossland]

On 18 May 2016 at 10:05, Walter Bender  wrote:

> for some reason or other, the SFC seems to think that every outlay
> requires explicit approval from the entire board


FWIW I think this is reasonable, since the board have shared and equal
financial responsibility for the Conservancy account.
___
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)

[Walter Bender]

FWIW, while I agree that retroactively approving of funds is not ideal,
this particular case is a matter of formal approval of what was already
approved. SLOB gave me authority to make these sorts of decisions for the
Trip Advisor grant several times now and I believe it is within Chris's
discretion as well. Nonetheless, for some reason or other, the SFC seems to
think that every outlay requires explicit approval from the entire board.
Further, it is not like this was an attempt to blind-side or circumvent the
board. I brought this up several months ago, but we have not managed to
vote on it.

Finally, I find the "wait-until-the-last-moment-to-object" style of
discourse to be highly unprofessional. I reiterate, this has been on the
table for months as has been the opportunity for feedback and discussion.

-walter

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Lionel Laské 
wrote:

>
> +1 for the remark of Adam.
> +1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.
>
>Lionel.
>
> 2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :
>
>> I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
>> unprofessional, in all instances.
>>
>> Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
>> that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
>> situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
>> happening and why.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Chris Leonard > > wrote:
>>
>>> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
>>> the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
>>> Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
>>> English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
>>> Community Manager activities.
>>>
>>> Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
>>> I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
>>> requests.  It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
>>> when someone is sent to a conference on company time.  This practice
>>> provides a further return on investment.  Not only are your ideas
>>> shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
>>> conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
>>> funding.
>>>
>>> cjl
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>> > I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
>>> > side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
>>> >
>>> > Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
>>> > interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
>>> > total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to
>>> $168.88.
>>> > The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with
>>> Aymara
>>> > i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
>>> > region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter
>>> Bender
>>> > as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip Advisor
>>> grant
>>> > and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's
>>> report is
>>> > at [2].
>>> >
>>> > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing
>>> Sugar
>>> > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del
>>> Perú
>>> > meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
>>> >
>>> > -walter
>>> >
>>> > [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
>>> > [2]
>>> >
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing
>>> >
>>> > -- Forwarded message --
>>> > From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
>>> > 
>>> > Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
>>> > Subject: approval details for Quispe-Chambi trip expenses? (was: Fwd:
>>> > Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
>>> > To: su...@sfconservancy.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
>>> > Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
>>> >
>>> > However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may
>>> be
>>> > rejected because of this.  The information I have is:
>>> >
>>> > El mar. 18, 2016 5:52 AM, "Walter Bender" 
>>> > escribió:
>>> >>> Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
>>> >>> SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
>>> >>> we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
>>> >>> advance.
>>> >
>>> > I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
>>> > between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
>>> > Can someone send that along, please?  A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
>>> > where it was approved are fine.
>>> >
>>> > 

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

[Lionel Laské]

+1 for the remark of Adam.
+1 for the motion due to the relative small amount of money engaged.

   Lionel.

2016-05-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :

> I find the practice of retroactively voting for funds to be highly
> unprofessional, in all instances.
>
> Nevertheless I am hereby voting in favor in this 1 instance, on the hope
> that Translation Community Manager Chris Leonard will begin improving the
> situation with a public blog going forward -- so everyone knows what's
> happening and why.
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Chris Leonard 
> wrote:
>
>> I would note that, as requested, Edgar provided a brief write-up of
>> the event afterwards (in Spanish), which I have
>> Google-assisted-translated and will be posting (in both Spanish and
>> English) on the blog that I'm setting up for reporting on Translation
>> Community Manager activities.
>>
>> Asking funded travelers for a post-travel write-up is a practice that
>> I think Sugar Labs SLOB should consider in all travel-funding
>> requests.  It is a very common practice in science-related businesses,
>> when someone is sent to a conference on company time.  This practice
>> provides a further return on investment.  Not only are your ideas
>> shared with the audience at the destination by the traveler, but the
>> conference's ideas are reported back to the community providing the
>> funding.
>>
>> cjl
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Walter Bender 
>> wrote:
>> > I realize that we never actually had a formal motion for this as we got
>> > side-tracked by the i18n manager discussion (See [1]).
>> >
>> > Background: Edgar Quispe had requested funds to attend the Traducción e
>> > interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The
>> > total cost of the trip was expected to be ~$200. In fact it came to
>> $168.88.
>> > The purpose of the visit was for Edgar to share his experience with
>> Aymara
>> > i18n for Sugar Labs with speakers of other indigenous languages in the
>> > region. Note that this was pre-approved by Chris Leonard and Walter
>> Bender
>> > as appropriate and relevant to our i18n efforts under the Trip Advisor
>> grant
>> > and brought up for discussion at the 1 April SLOB meeting. Edgar's
>> report is
>> > at [2].
>> >
>> > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing
>> Sugar
>> > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del
>> Perú
>> > meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
>> >
>> > -walter
>> >
>> > [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-March/017787.html
>> > [2]
>> >
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5r4d6qh-WsZmF1cWQxemdGN0FmMzJnRjBZNEhKaEZWd1pB/view?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message --
>> > From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
>> > 
>> > Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM
>> > Subject: approval details for Quispe-Chambi trip expenses? (was: Fwd:
>> > Solicitud de auspicio de pasajes)
>> > To: su...@sfconservancy.org
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm submitting tonight to Conservancy internal approval process Edgar
>> > Quispe Chambi's reimbursement request of US$161.88.
>> >
>> > However, I am unable to find SLOBs approval, so the reimbursement may be
>> > rejected because of this.  The information I have is:
>> >
>> > El mar. 18, 2016 5:52 AM, "Walter Bender" 
>> > escribió:
>> >>> Chris and I approved the travel. We will get formal approval from the
>> >>> SLOB but there is no time to wait. Please keep your receipts so that
>> >>> we can reimburse you. Sorry that there is no time to get you a travel
>> >>> advance.
>> >
>> > I assume based on that statements and the one below that at sometime
>> > between March 18th and April 15th, there was a formal SLOBs approval.
>> > Can someone send that along, please?  A URL link to the SLOBs minutes
>> > where it was approved are fine.
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bradley M. Kuhn
>> > President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
>> >  |--> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.
>> > Pls donate so we can increase staff:
>> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Walter Bender
>> > Sugar Labs
>> > http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> >
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
>> http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)