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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 17:01, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
> Come on Dave! I trust the board members. If any of them were opposed
> I'm sure we would know about it by now. Let them do the job they were elected 
> to do.

You are welcome to volunteer as the board's secretary, the job Adam
asked me to do. Would you like to do this?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 18:06, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> Why can you not accept that some of the votes were not made to the IAEP
> mailing list in error.

You are opposing addressing this error but without explaining why.
Please explain
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

Dave

I am really tired of these accusations. At the time that this motion was 
voted on, there had not been this hue and cry about voting on IAEP. 
There was
no deliberate attempt for the votes to be made secretly behind the backs 
of the members. Why can you not accept that some of the votes were not 
made to the IAEP mailing list in error.


I copied the text of the emails. What more can you possibly want. A 
sworn affidavit? For God's sake this motion was made at the request of 
the Conservancy when the item was in the limit of petty cash.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 07:54 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 30 June 2016 at 13:27, Tony Anderson  wrote:

On 27 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:

Hi Tony

On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:

Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
that you say you are aware of.

Would you be willing to do this?

Thanks for taking the time to do attempt this :)

So, 4 of the votes were posted in private and you got them because you
are on the SLOB list; only 3 were public, and while you didn't provide
links that I can add to the Decisions page, I'll take your word for it
:)

Previous on this thread you said:

- "I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public."

- "I don't remember anything private in those votes."

- "I am certainly not aware of any motion made by a member of the
Board which has not been handled entirely in public."

Given that 4 of the votes were posted in private, then I say those
statements are kindly mistaken.

Rather, I would say:

- the actions of the board have been clearly summarised (thank you
Walter) but not made in public

- you have now reported the votes for one motion not made in public

- that motion was therefore not handled entirely in public



I think members should be able to keep their comments private.

I agree - I said earlier, "As you know I have engaged the SLOBs list
privately over legally sensitive trademark matters, which I hope
demonstrates that I understand and agree with the need for a private
board discussion forum."


I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.

Please don't worry about it - it is clear that providing the
membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each
motion is impossible, until the board passes a motion requiring votes
to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as
valid.

As a SLOB member, would you be willing to post such a motion to
improve the operation of the project?
.



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

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

2016-06-30 Thread Caryl Bigenho
Come on Dave! I trust the board members. If any of them were opposed I'm sure 
we would know about it by now. Let them do the job they were elected to do.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
>> On 30 June 2016 at 13:27, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>>> On 27 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>> Hi Tony
>>> 
 On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:
 Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
 from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
 that you say you are aware of.
>>> 
>>> Would you be willing to do this?
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to do attempt this :)
> 
> So, 4 of the votes were posted in private and you got them because you
> are on the SLOB list; only 3 were public, and while you didn't provide
> links that I can add to the Decisions page, I'll take your word for it
> :)
> 
> Previous on this thread you said:
> 
> - "I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public."
> 
> - "I don't remember anything private in those votes."
> 
> - "I am certainly not aware of any motion made by a member of the
> Board which has not been handled entirely in public."
> 
> Given that 4 of the votes were posted in private, then I say those
> statements are kindly mistaken.
> 
> Rather, I would say:
> 
> - the actions of the board have been clearly summarised (thank you
> Walter) but not made in public
> 
> - you have now reported the votes for one motion not made in public
> 
> - that motion was therefore not handled entirely in public
> 
> 
>> I think members should be able to keep their comments private.
> 
> I agree - I said earlier, "As you know I have engaged the SLOBs list
> privately over legally sensitive trademark matters, which I hope
> demonstrates that I understand and agree with the need for a private
> board discussion forum."
> 
>> I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.
> 
> Please don't worry about it - it is clear that providing the
> membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each
> motion is impossible, until the board passes a motion requiring votes
> to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as
> valid.
> 
> As a SLOB member, would you be willing to post such a motion to
> improve the operation of the project?
> ___
> 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] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 30 June 2016 at 13:27, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> On 27 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> > Hi Tony
> >
> > On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> >> Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
> >> from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
> >> that you say you are aware of.
> >
> > Would you be willing to do this?

Thanks for taking the time to do attempt this :)

So, 4 of the votes were posted in private and you got them because you
are on the SLOB list; only 3 were public, and while you didn't provide
links that I can add to the Decisions page, I'll take your word for it
:)

Previous on this thread you said:

- "I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public."

- "I don't remember anything private in those votes."

- "I am certainly not aware of any motion made by a member of the
Board which has not been handled entirely in public."

Given that 4 of the votes were posted in private, then I say those
statements are kindly mistaken.

Rather, I would say:

- the actions of the board have been clearly summarised (thank you
Walter) but not made in public

- you have now reported the votes for one motion not made in public

- that motion was therefore not handled entirely in public


> I think members should be able to keep their comments private.

I agree - I said earlier, "As you know I have engaged the SLOBs list
privately over legally sensitive trademark matters, which I hope
demonstrates that I understand and agree with the need for a private
board discussion forum."

> I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.

Please don't worry about it - it is clear that providing the
membership with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list for each
motion is impossible, until the board passes a motion requiring votes
to be emailed to the IAEP and SLOB lists in order to be counted as
valid.

As a SLOB member, would you be willing to post such a motion to
improve the operation of the project?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson

The following was my reply to Walter's request.

Hi Walter,

My intention was to vote in favor of the motion. Perhaps we need some 
standard way to vote so that it will be understood.


Tony

On 05/18/2016 02:01 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
Please respond to this request for your vote today. If you are going to 
abstain, then please do me the courtesy of telling me.


regards.

-walter

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Tony Anderson > wrote:

Agreed.

Tony

Unfortunately my reply went only to the SLOBs list (a feature of the 
reply all button in Thunderbird).


Hola!
+1 para
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


Saludos!

This vote was addressed to the SLOBs list.

Adam's response:

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.


This reply went to SLOBs, IAEP, and Sugar-devel.

Lionel's response:


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

   Lionel.

This reply went to the three lists.

Claudia's response:

+1 from me!

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:29 AM, José Miguel García 
 wrote:


Hola!
+1 para
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


Saludos!


___
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay
Claudia's response went only to the SLOBs list.

Sameer's response. This response went only to the SLOBs list.

+1

Sameer

On May 18, 2016 5:01 AM, "Walter Bender" > wrote:
Please respond to this request for your vote today. If you are going to 
abstain, then please do me the courtesy of telling me.


regards.

-walter

This appears to be 7 votes in favor of the motion. I apologize to any 
member who wished their response to be private. All a member should need to
have the vote recorded. I think members should be able to keep their 
comments private.


I'll try to look at the others, but I don't have more time at the moment.

Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:54 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 27 June 2016 at 10:55, Tony Anderson  wrote:

Can you identify these motions. Most of the votes were cast at the meetings.
As far as I remember there were two email votes.

Five motions have passed since I joined the project and I can only
verify all 7 votes for 1 motion. The other 4 are:

AGREED MOTION 2016-21, Walter Bender: 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. (See
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-19: To pay for laboratoriosazucar.org domain
registration renewal

AGREED MOTION 2016-14: To fund a program to initiate the translation
of Sugar into Yoruba. The work would be led by Samson Goddy and
reviewed by Chris Leonard, in his role as Translation Community
Manager (See 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-13 Dave Crossland: To update the Sugar License from
GPLv2 to GPLv3 
(http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)
.



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

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
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
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland
On 27 June 2016 at 10:55, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> Can you identify these motions. Most of the votes were cast at the meetings.
> As far as I remember there were two email votes.

Five motions have passed since I joined the project and I can only
verify all 7 votes for 1 motion. The other 4 are:

AGREED MOTION 2016-21, Walter Bender: 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. (See
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-19: To pay for laboratoriosazucar.org domain
registration renewal

AGREED MOTION 2016-14: To fund a program to initiate the translation
of Sugar into Yoruba. The work would be led by Samson Goddy and
reviewed by Chris Leonard, in his role as Translation Community
Manager (See 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)

AGREED MOTION 2016-13 Dave Crossland: To update the Sugar License from
GPLv2 to GPLv3 
(http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-May/052588.html)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-27 Thread Tony Anderson

Hi, Dave

Can you identify these motions. Most of the votes were cast at the 
meetings. As far as I remember there were two email votes.


Tony

On 06/27/2016 04:14 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 27 June 2016 at 09:24, Tony Anderson  wrote:

If it is useful.

It surely is


Why do you care for specific emails for specific votes?

Transparency


Do you have any specific motions where there is concern about
whether it passed?

Each motion where I can not observe each vote is a grave concern for me
.



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

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

2016-06-27 Thread Dave Crossland
On 27 June 2016 at 09:24, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> If it is useful.

It surely is

> Why do you care for specific emails for specific votes?

Transparency

> Do you have any specific motions where there is concern about
> whether it passed?

Each motion where I can not observe each vote is a grave concern for me
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

2016-06-27 Thread Tony Anderson

Hi, Dave

If it is useful. Why do you care for specific emails for specific votes? 
Do you have any specific motions where there is concern about

whether it passed?

Tony

On 06/27/2016 02:42 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

Hi Tony

On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:

Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
that you say you are aware of.

Would you be willing to do this?

Cheers
Dave
.



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

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

2016-06-27 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi Tony

On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
> from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
> that you say you are aware of.

Would you be willing to do this?

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

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

2016-06-21 Thread Dave Crossland
On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion
> (email or otherwise)

This is simply, factually, false.

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16429.html
Walter reports the outcome of the vote, but it is impossible for
members to verify this.

I am not accusing Walter of the board of acting in bad faith. I am
simply stating facts, and posting motions to avoid procedural
mistakes.

When the board is voting on financial matters, procedural mistakes
become more serious, so I am eager to resolve the cause of the
problems _now_ before they are a problem _later._

> I am certainly not aware of any motion
> made by a member of the Board which has not been handled entirely in public.

Here is another recent motion which is reportedly passed but I can not
verify the votes.

The motion posted by Walter Bender which you can see here,

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html

and

http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16405.html

The text of the motion is:

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.

Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
that you say you are aware of.

>> Since you are on the SLOB list I am not surprised, but since I am not, how
>> can I know?
>
> The meetings of the Board are public. Yes, I am on the SLOBs list, and I can
> assure you there is nothing secret happening there. Your continued
> assertions that Board members are somehow deliberately acting behind the
> backs of SL members is not helpful.

I am not accusing anyone of acting behind anyone's backs. As you know
I have engaged the SLOBs list privately over legally sensitive
trademark matters, which I hope demonstrates that I understand and
agree with the need for a private board discussion forum.

What I am frustrated about is the board voting privately, and I see
room to improve board procedures since there is a chance of
potentially voting privately which I think ought to be formally
avoided.

I don't mean to be making accusations, rather sincerely stating the
facts as I see them. It's a fact, widely acknowledged, that the board
_can_ vote on public motions privately. I hope this will be rectified.

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.

Responding to the overall situation of the board not acting promptly,
I have posted motions that I wish to see the board adopt to order the
monthly meeting in a productive way.

Like Laura, I feel hurt because, like everyone, I have a need to be
heard and acknowledged, and she and I have contributed to the
improvement of the board but our need has not been met. I also think
that Caryl's motions have also not been given much support from each
board member to help the motions reach a version that can pass.

> Your assertion that Board members
> are not acting promptly and decisively is not supported by the record and is
> also not helpful.

I have explained exactly and precisely to you how the board members
have not acted promptly and decisively.

I've also asked in other threads for the board to each post your
thoughts about each motion that has been posted by members that have
not been publicly commented on, earlier this week.

I do not know what else I can do to make this completely clear to you.

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

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

2016-06-20 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi,

On 20 June 2016 at 02:51, Tony Anderson  wrote:

>
> Could you be specific on the necessary procedural actions that the Board
> did not take?
>

Consideration of motions visible to Members.


> Note that the Oversight Board/decisions page does not show the GSOC mentor
> motion as passed.
>

Since it passed it says:

AGREED MOTION 2016-34


Could you be specific on instances where the Board voted privately? Since
> most of this activity occurs during Board meetings which are public, and
> which you frequently attend - I see nothing private there.
>

"Most of this activity occurs during Board meetings" is factually false,
because motions can be posted and deliberated and voted on via email for 7
days after they are posted, irrespective of that 7 day period coinciding
with a monthly board meeting, and most recent motions have been posted via
email and not seen any consideration visible to members from most board
members.

The problem is not that the board has voted completely privately, but that
the board appears not to have voted at all - yet there is no way of knowing
because votes _may_ be cast privately. In the last motion that was voted
on, the GSOC one, Walter told me a private vote and I accept this on good
faith but it is not ideal. Thus my latest motion.


> So you must be referring to email votes. These are and should be rare.
>

I have no idea why you think that.


> On the Oversight Board/decisions page, you should show motions decided by
> email vote. The only two I remember were the Quispe motion and the GSOC
> motion. I don't remember anything private in those votes.
>

Since you are on the SLOB list I am not surprised, but since I am not, how
can I know?

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