Hi, Dave
This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are not
for the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions. A majority of the Board
members
commented on these motions before the meeting. These comments were
consistent with the comments made at the meeting with a couple of
exceptions.
We need to come to a consensus on the motions before they are presented
to the Board. With the exception of motions to authorize payments, I
don't see that any of these motions have an urgency that justifies their
being passed immediately nor any harm to Sugar Labs resulting from their
not being passed on June 3.
I appreciate the work and enthusiasm that you have brought to the Vision
motion. However, I don't understand your apparent insensitivity to the
obvious fact that these issues are very important to the community and
deserve the time needed to obtain community understanding and commitment.
You have provided a valuable framework in which to have these
discussions and that is a major contribution. I hope that when the
community discussion has reached consensus on the wording of a vision
statement that you will be happy with the result and proud of your
contribution to it.
Tony
On 06/04/2016 05:46 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:42:41 -0600
From: Dave Crossland<d...@lab6.com>
To: Walter Bender<walter.ben...@gmail.com>
Cc: iaep<iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org>, SLOBs<sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by
a member
Message-ID:
<CAEozd0zuLEJfMVHu3YK83-0Jkj-=+Yw=49aj6+2p2wiqr8z...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Walter Bender<walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland<d...@lab6.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender<walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland<d...@lab6.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the
>>>>current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle
>>>discussion of motions before a vote. There must be some way to get board
>>>members to engage between meetings.
>>>
>>
>>We have a wonderful way to discuss between meetings, and even vote on
>>motions: Email.
>>
>
>But by-and-large the SLOB members have not been participating in those
>discussions :P
>
I hope that making the monthly/weekly meeting focused procedurally on
decision-making instead of discussions will smoke them out.
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
