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

Hi, Dave Could you be specific on the necessary procedural actions that the Board did not take? Note that the Oversight Board/decisions page does not show the GSOC mentor motion as passed. Could you be specific on instances where the Board voted privately? Since most of this activity

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

Hi On 19 June 2016 at 13:31, Tony Anderson wrote: > I suspect we will continue to disagree. I believe the actions of the board > have been clear and made in public. > Please see my email to Claudia a moment ago. > I don't think your unhappiness with the Board relates

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

Hi Dave, I suspect we will continue to disagree. I believe the actions of the board have been clear and made in public. I don't think your unhappiness with the Board relates to procedures. It appears to be based on actions which you think the board should have taken, but didn't. Tony On

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

On 19 June 2016 at 06:08, Tony Anderson wrote: > > What is the issue? > Effectiveness. > The normal procedure is to make a motion, have it seconded, and then vote. > If it lacks a second, it means the SLOBs do not believe it it ready for > consideration. > When SLOB's

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

Hi, Dave What is the issue? The normal procedure is to make a motion, have it seconded, and then vote. If it lacks a second, it means the SLOBs do not believe it it ready for consideration. If it fails to receive four votes, it means the SLOBs do not approve the motion. In both cases,

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

On 18 June 2016 at 16:54, Laura Vargas wrote: > Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D > I am waiting. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org

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

2016-06-17 23:29 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > (Apologies for the empty sent earlier) > > On 16 June 2016 at 23:30, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> >> On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave

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

On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas wrote: > > > 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > >> On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY wrote: >> > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application becomes >> the >> >

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

2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland : > On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY wrote: > > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application becomes > the > > treasurer for those funds. > > Fair enough :) I am merely observing what I see as

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

On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY wrote: > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application becomes the > treasurer for those funds. Fair enough :) I am merely observing what I see as current practice with the Trip Advisor grant :) > What should happen is a

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

What does the SFC say about the management of grant funds? Caryl From: sdaly...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:12:31 +0200 To: la...@somosazucar.org CC: logo...@gmail.com; sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org; lio...@olpc-france.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-...@lists.laptop.org;

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

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Laura Vargas wrote: > Thanks for reading/commenting Thanks Laura, I have made some additions. Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application becomes the treasurer for those funds. What should happen is a sales cycle: if

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

Hi Caryl I think you're saying that all SLOBs should be active fundraisers as part of the role? We could also say we "need a team of dedicated volunteers" to work on adapting Sugar Activities to curricula, on developing teacher tools, on providing support, on adding platforms, on localization,