Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 7 August 2016 at 13:48, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva 
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of raising the barrier to entry, I would prefer to enforce our
>> currency policy ("are you still interested in being a member?" - every
>> year) so that hopefully only active members get to vote.
>>
>
> I don't think that's precisely what is bein debated :)
>
> Rather, the issue is that we have to define who it is we consider worth
> asking if they are interested to be a member. I am happy to cast as wide a
> net as possible, while Caryl would like to cast the net wider in some ways
> and narrower in others, and would like SLOBs to decide rather than the
> delegated committee.
>

Do you have any further comments on how wide a net to cast here?

On 5 August 2016 at 19:11, I wrote in this thread:

>
> I agree that we could clarify how we determine what level of contribution
> counts to make one eligible for membership.
>
> I propose the following are sufficient:
>
> - owning a computer or being part of an organization that owns computers
> that regularly use Sugar
>
> - creating a wiki account and making 1 edit to the wiki
>
> - posting to a SL mailing list
>
> - contributing a patch to a sugar software package
>
> - owning a laptop.org or sugarlabs.org email account, now or in the past
>
> What are possible verifiable criteria are possible? Should any of these
> not count?
>

I saw https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members says, bold emphasis
mine:

Any "significant and sustained" contributor to Sugar Labs is eligible for
membership. Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition, a
contributor generally must have* contributed to a non-trivial improvement* of
the Sugar project or Sugar Labs activity. Contributions may be *code,
documentation, translations, maintenance of project-wide resources, running
a Sugar deployment, or other non-trivial activities which benefit Sugar
Labs.* Membership eligibility is an individual determination: while
contributions made in the course of employment will be considered, they
will generally be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than
accruing to all employees of a "contributing" corporation. The Membership
and Elections Committee will oversee membership applications (Please apply
by sending email to members at sugarlabs.org).


I think all the items on my list above are trivial, and therefore if we
continue to use that membership bar, then none of those should count, but I
think most items can be 'significant and sustained' if they are qualified
by a specific volume metric, ie,

- managing an organization/deployment that regularly uses Sugar (note -
this excludes sugar users from being members)

- creating a wiki account and making 10+ edits to the wiki in the last 3-12
months

- posting to a SL mailing list 10+ times in the last 3-12 months

- contributing 10+ patches to any software package hosted in
github.com/sugarlabs or http://git.sugarlabs.org in the last 3-12 months

Should we include such criteria in the email to potential members, so they
can confirm they are on par within 2016? If so, what should the criteria be?

I am in favor of casting a wide net with a relatively low barrier, such
that anyone who wants to be a member can say make 10 list emails or wiki
edits 91 days or more before the election and qualify, but just saying "I
want to be a member" without any participation in the last year can not.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 6 August 2016 at 10:09, Samson Goddy  wrote:

> Yeah nice one dave! i will think of more!
>

Did you think of any? :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva 
wrote:

> Instead of raising the barrier to entry, I would prefer to enforce our
> currency policy ("are you still interested in being a member?" - every
> year) so that hopefully only active members get to vote.
>

I don't think that's precisely what is bein debated :)

Rather, the issue is that we have to define who it is we consider worth
asking if they are interested to be a member. I am happy to cast as wide a
net as possible, while Caryl would like to cast the net wider in some ways
and narrower in others, and would like SLOBs to decide rather than the
delegated committee.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva 
 wrote:

>
> Of course the committee has to agree on this.


I think we can reach consensus on this within August :)

However, more broadly, if a committee has to reach consensus, then there
needs to be some method of resolving disagreements within the committee; I
assume that will be by voting... and so then, I wonder, does there need to
be an odd number of committee members to prevent a hung decision? Or will,
for example, Walter providing a tie-breaking decision in such cases?


* * *


Also, I recalled this thread from a few months ago where Seb and Caryl
detailed some of the election history:

http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16445.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16467.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16688.html


At the time I made a note on https://wiki.sugarlabs.or
g/go/Sugar_Labs/Members#Currency_assurance_policy that says,

The most recent currency review was in January 2016.


>From the thread:

AH> Sebastian, do you recall how many emails bounced by Dec 15th 2015
AH> when you verified 79 active members
>
SS> Of the ~262(+/-) emails sent, 50 bounced. Identifying them will take
SS> some processing.

Seb, did you do this processing? If not, perhaps better to forget it. I
think as Caryl said in the thread,

CB> we need to go back to "square 1" on the active members list

:)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva 
wrote:

>
> In order to be appointed to Membership and Election committee a SLOBS vote
> was necessary


Ah yes, Seb invited me to join in the non-quorum meeting, and I see that
this isn't sufficient.

For Seb and Caryl (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#
2015-04-06) I found the logs for the motion (http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/
sugar-meeting/meetings/2015-04-06T23:10:04#i_2838172). (For Samson, (
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2015-05-06) says
that it was done by email; I couldn't find anything in the logs (
http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2015-05-04T23:07:10) or
IAEP archives so I guess its another accidentally-secret ballot ;)

Since the last meeting as non-quorum, I would like to suggest any SLOB to
make a motion via email, using the same phrasing as before:



A motion to appoint davelab6 to the election committee




Also, it seems per
http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg15526.html that
if appointed then I will need my email alias added to /etc/aliases on
sunjammer
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Sebastian Silva]

El 07/08/16 a las 09:23, Caryl Bigenho escribió:

> This discussion really belongs to the SLOBS members and the leaders of
> the various projects. It is not for you and I, or any other individual
> members to decide.

Hi Caryl, Sugar Labs,

I welcomed Dave's proposal because he is merely proposing a new way to
keep track of members (a moderated mailman list instead of a "Google
spreadsheet").

It is the Membership and Election Committee's (main) duty to keep this
list up to date, and currently we do it manually on third party
infrastructure using non-free software.

Mailing lists are stable, easy to manage and maintain, and would make it
easier to manage in the future (it's automatic). The members mailman
list won't exist for general discussion but for official communication
from Sugar Labs to members and as the official registry of members.

Of course the committee has to agree on this. In order to be appointed
to Membership and Election committee a SLOBS vote was necessary, I would
be happy if Dave went through the process, especially if he has more
initiatives to improve our process.

Regarding who is, or not, entitled to become a member, I have never seen
anyone rejected from Sugar Labs; I find it hard to imagine, and I like
it that way.

Instead of raising the barrier to entry, I would prefer to enforce our
currency policy ("are you still interested in being a member?" - every
year) so that hopefully only active members get to vote.

Regards,
Sebastian

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Caryl Bigenho]

This discussion really belongs to the SLOBS members and the leaders of the 
various projects. It is not for you and I, or any other individual members to 
decide.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 6, 2016, at 10:55 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 6, 2016 11:29 PM, "Caryl Bigenho" <ca...@laptop.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: d...@lab6.com
> > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 17:29:13 -0400
> >
> > Subject: Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election
> > To: ca...@laptop.org
> > CC: cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
> > samsongo...@sugarlabs.org
> >
> >
> > On 6 August 2016 at 16:01, Caryl Bigenho <ca...@laptop.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I disagree about XSCE
> >
> >
> > Is XSCE a Sugar Labs project? 
> >
> > You will have to ask the XSCE folks that question.
> 
> I will do :) Do you have any suggestions for criteria to evaluate how to 
> define what is and is not a Sugar Labs owned project?
> 
> > As far as I know, the project is self-funded by the volunteers who work on 
> > it. Most of them are members of Sugar Lab.
> 
> Yes, I've read their weekly call minutes and joined a call earlier this year 
> :) I encourage anyone who hasn't to also do so :)
> 
> Are there any other related projects like this you suggest reaching out to?
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On Aug 6, 2016 11:29 PM, "Caryl Bigenho" <ca...@laptop.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 
> From: d...@lab6.com
> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 17:29:13 -0400
>
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election
> To: ca...@laptop.org
> CC: cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org;
samsongo...@sugarlabs.org
>
>
> On 6 August 2016 at 16:01, Caryl Bigenho <ca...@laptop.org> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree about XSCE
>
>
> Is XSCE a Sugar Labs project?
>
> You will have to ask the XSCE folks that question.

I will do :) Do you have any suggestions for criteria to evaluate how to
define what is and is not a Sugar Labs owned project?

> As far as I know, the project is self-funded by the volunteers who work
on it. Most of them are members of Sugar Lab.

Yes, I've read their weekly call minutes and joined a call earlier this
year :) I encourage anyone who hasn't to also do so :)

Are there any other related projects like this you suggest reaching out to?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Caryl Bigenho]

From: d...@lab6.com
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 17:29:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election
To: ca...@laptop.org
CC: cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; 
samsongo...@sugarlabs.org


On 6 August 2016 at 16:01, Caryl Bigenho <ca...@laptop.org> wrote:
I disagree about XSCE

Is XSCE a Sugar Labs project? 
You will have to ask the XSCE folks that question. As far as I know, the 
project is self-funded by the volunteers who work on it. Most of them are 
members of Sugar Lab. They produce products that aid in the use of Sugar 
worldwide. 
Caryl ___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 6 August 2016 at 16:01, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> I disagree about XSCE


Is XSCE a Sugar Labs project?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi…
I disagree about XSCE. Those contributors should definitely be eligible for 
Sugar Labs membership. Their work has been in direct support of many Sugar 
Deployments. IIAB developers should also be included, if they wish, as we use 
their work in deployments that either do not have internet or cannot use it for 
some reason. For example, at one of the deployments in a battered women't 
shelter in  Los Angeles they use it because the children aren't allowed to use 
the internet. Other places use both of these these (XSCE and IIAB) in their 
Sugar Deployments.
Also, the many folks involved with Sugarizer should be included. Obviously, it 
is the only way Sugar can be used on tablets and phones and is critical in 
areas where XOs and computers that can run SOAS are not available. For many, it 
represents the future of Sugar.
Now… additionally… I personally do not feel that mearly owning an XO or using 
Sugar should qualify a person for membership. If they have contributed to 
testing various versions of Sugar or have developed lesson plans and guides or 
similar resources for using Sugar with children they should definitely be 
eligible. In fact, maybe it is time to encourage people to  share their lesson 
plans. There is a real need for them.
Similarly, merely adding a few lines to the wiki or writing a few responses on 
a mailing list should not be enough. Real contributions should show a true 
commitment to the project and represent many hours of work. Not just a few 
minutes of casual comments and a few lines of information on the wiki.
Sorry, Dave, but I think some other long-time members may tend to agree with 
me. Remember… bigger isn't better and quantity doesn't equal quality!
Caryl
From: d...@lab6.com
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:45:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election
To: cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com
CC: ca...@laptop.org; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; samsongo...@sugarlabs.org

Hi
On 6 August 2016 at 11:14, Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Contributions to L10n on http://translate.sugarlabs.org

Sounds good! Please can you extract and email me a list of all names/emails of 
all translation contributions? :)
On 6 August 2016 at 11:13, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote:

Clearly we should be looking for people who are supporting or sponsoring XO 
deployments with Sugar. I'm obviously happy to cast a wide net here, so, sure - 
please email me a list of all names/emails of all such contributors :)
You also did not mention contributors to Sugar activities. 
OK, I'll try to grep the git logs of the activities already Github as well as 
the legacy Gitorious codebase. What about contributors to support-gang (albeit 
an olpc list)? Nah, if support-gang or unleashkids or olpc-sf or any other 
related community's members are not subscribed to any sugarlabs list, I don't 
think they can qualify as as a Sugar Labs contributor :)
What about developers and users of xsce (school server)?
Nah, that's a related but separate project for me. There are lots of projects 
in the libre edu tech space, I see no reason to reach out to invite them to 
vote in the SLOB campaign. 
-- 
Cheers
Dave
  ___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 6 August 2016 at 11:14, Chris Leonard  wrote:

> Contributions to L10n on http://translate.sugarlabs.org
>

Sounds good! Please can you extract and email me a list of all names/emails
of all translation contributions? :)

On 6 August 2016 at 11:13, Tony Anderson  wrote:

>
> Clearly we should be looking for people who are supporting or sponsoring
> XO deployments with Sugar.
>

I'm obviously happy to cast a wide net here, so, sure - please email me a
list of all names/emails of all such contributors :)

You also did not mention contributors to Sugar activities.
>

OK, I'll try to grep the git logs of the activities already Github as well
as the legacy Gitorious codebase.


> What about contributors to support-gang (albeit an olpc list)?
>

Nah, if support-gang or unleashkids or olpc-sf or any other related
community's members are not subscribed to any sugarlabs list, I don't think
they can qualify as as a Sugar Labs contributor :)

What about developers and users of xsce (school server)?
>

Nah, that's a related but separate project for me. There are lots of
projects in the libre edu tech space, I see no reason to reach out to
invite them to vote in the SLOB campaign.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Chris Leonard]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> Hi
>
> Glad to hear you were able to get some rest :D
>
> On 5 August 2016 at 18:57, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> qualify by actually making some tangible "contribution" (not money) to
>> Sugar Labs
>> [by] development of software or hardware, having a small deployment,
>> hosting Sugar
>> Labs and OLPC events
>> ...
>> We should end up with, hopefully, a complete, up-to-date list, with
>> current
>> valid email addresses, of all contributors to Sugar Labs projects (of any
>> kind)
>> who desire to be members.
>
> I agree that we could clarify how we determine what level of contribution
> counts to make one eligible for membership.
>
> I propose the following are sufficient:
>
> - owning a computer or being part of an organization that owns computers
> that regularly use Sugar
>
> - creating a wiki account and making 1 edit to the wiki
>
> - posting to a SL mailing list
>
> - contributing a patch to a sugar software package
>
> - owning a laptop.org or sugarlabs.org email account, now or in the past
>
> What are possible verifiable criteria are possible? Should any of these not
> count?


Contributions to L10n on http://translate.sugarlabs.org


cjl
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Samson Goddy]

Yeah nice one dave! i will think of more!
From: d...@lab6.com
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 19:11:20 -0400
To: ca...@laptop.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election
CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; samsongo...@sugarlabs.org

Hi 
Glad to hear you were able to get some rest :D
On 5 August 2016 at 18:57, Caryl Bigenho <ca...@laptop.org> wrote:
>
> ...> qualify by actually making some tangible "contribution" (not money) to 
> Sugar Labs> [by] development of software or hardware, having a small 
> deployment, hosting Sugar > Labs and OLPC events> ...> We should end up with, 
> hopefully, a complete, up-to-date list, with current > valid email addresses, 
> of all contributors to Sugar Labs projects (of any kind) > who desire to be 
> members.

I agree that we could clarify how we determine what level of contribution 
counts to make one eligible for membership.
I propose the following are sufficient:
- owning a computer or being part of an organization that owns computers that 
regularly use Sugar

- creating a wiki account and making 1 edit to the wiki
- posting to a SL mailing list
- contributing a patch to a sugar software package

- owning a laptop.org or sugarlabs.org email account, now or in the past

What are possible verifiable criteria are possible? Should any of these not 
count? 
:)
CheersDave

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
  ___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

Glad to hear you were able to get some rest :D

On 5 August 2016 at 18:57, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
>
> ...
> qualify by actually making some tangible "contribution" (not money) to
Sugar Labs
> [by] development of software or hardware, having a small deployment,
hosting Sugar
> Labs and OLPC events
> ...
> We should end up with, hopefully, a complete, up-to-date list, with
current
> valid email addresses, of all contributors to Sugar Labs projects (of any
kind)
> who desire to be members.

I agree that we could clarify how we determine what level of contribution
counts to make one eligible for membership.

I propose the following are sufficient:

- owning a computer or being part of an organization that owns computers
that regularly use Sugar

- creating a wiki account and making 1 edit to the wiki

- posting to a SL mailing list

- contributing a patch to a sugar software package

- owning a laptop.org or sugarlabs.org email account, now or in the past

What are possible verifiable criteria are possible? Should any of these not
count?

:)

Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi Folks…
A few minutes away from "Camp Grandma and Grandpa" to check emails (it's nap 
time).
This is all well and good, however in the past (when I first joined Sugar Labs) 
members had to qualify by actually making some tangible "contribution" (not 
money) to Sugar Labs. This could be development of software or hardware, having 
a small deployment, hosting Sugar Labs and OLPC events, and the like. We didn't 
simply say, "Hey, why don't you sign up and be a member?" 
What you are suggesting seems to throw away all criteria for membership, other 
than a person saying, "Sure, sign me up."
This cheapens both the organization and discounts the efforts of the many, many 
members who have done so much work in the past.
I do think getting the membership list up-to-date in a timely manner is a great 
idea and I am glad Dave is volunteering to do the job. The list we were left 
with for last year's election was a total mess and the names  of many folks, 
who were long time contributors, were missing. Hopefully we caught all of them 
by sending numerous emails keeping everyone up-to-date on the progress of the 
election. Many replied with "Hey, how come I didn't get my ballot yet? 
I urge caution in going forward with this. We should end up with, hopefully, a 
complete, up-to-date list, with current valid email addresses, of all 
contributors to Sugar Labs projects (of any kind) who desire to be members. 
Bigger isn't better in this case. Quantity definitely does not mean quality.
Caryl
Now, off to get my nap! Five-year-olds can be exhausting and if she is napping 
now, she will go to bed late tonight!
From: d...@lab6.com
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 17:45:12 -0400
To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; samsongo...@sugarlabs.org; ca...@laptop.org; 
sebast...@fuentelibre.org
Subject: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election


Hi
In today's meeting, Seb mentioned the 2017 SLOB election is coming up fast and 
should happen in (early) December. 
The election commitee last year was Samson, Caryl, and Sebastian, and Seb 
invited me to join, which I am happy to :)
I suggest we start making steady progress and update the community at each 
monthly SLOB meeting for the next 4 meetings that remain this year.
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_dd38dc6aa11d1a98 says "The 
top four candidates will serve 2 year terms and the next three will serve 1 
year terms" and here's the ordered list:
1. Walter Bender2. Lionel Laské3. Adam Holt4. Sameer Verma5. Claudia Urrea6. 
Tony Anderson7. Jose Miguel Garcia
Therefore Tony, Jose Miguel, and Claudia's seats will be elected this year.
The first thing I think needs to be done is to get a confirmed list of members. 
I can take care of it this month. 
Currently the member list is maintained in a Google Docs spreadsheet. Seb 
confirmed members were not contacted so far this year; the only activity is to 
add some new members to the sheet this year. Walter suggested a mass email to 
ask members to confirm/update their member status, and indeed it seems to me 
that the #1 purpose of the sheet is to have a list of people to email about 
Sugar Labs business.
So I propose that, since at the last meeting a motion to ask members for dinero 
passed, and since I have a large list of everyone who ever mailed a SL mailing 
list, everyone who every made a wiki account, and this members spreadsheet, I 
will mail all these people once to ask if they want to be 'members,' which I 
propose to define as having an email registed on a sugarlabs-annouce mailing 
list. This way there is no ambiguity that only paying members are members; 
instead it can be clear anyone on that mailing list is a member, and no payment 
is needed. I think it would be good to promise not to mail this announce list 
more than once a calendar month, and to configure the list as a public list 
where joining is moderated and so is emailing the list (ie, it can only be made 
by authorized persons.) Seb supported this idea.
For people who are not on the list, it seems there is already a procedure 
defined for how to deal with them. 
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members#Currency_assurance_policy 
says, "In order to ensure that the Sugar Labs Membership list is reflective of 
the current status of the project and its participants, once a year members 
will be asked to confirm that they still wish to be a Sugar Labs Member. If 
this request bounces, or if a request has not been replied to after it has been 
a) resent, b) checked for a more current email address, and c) six months have 
passed, the member will be sent a removal notice with an invitation to 
reapply." Therefore 6 months after this email, I can send a known-good list of 
accounts to remove from the wiki and we'll have a definitive active members 
list. 
So, I volunteer to do the following before the next SLOB meeting:
- I will ask Sam C to set up a new sugar-annou...@lists.sugarlabs.org mailing