Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[José Miguel García]

Hola!
De acuerdo con Dave cuando manifiesta que:

I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion point
(and possible immediate motion :)

This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself that
we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are - what criteria should be used to
define who is and is not eligible to be counted as a Sugar Labs member?


Entiendo que este es un tema a necesita debate conjunto.

De acuerdo con Walter:

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
if they had no interest in the project?


Saludos!
___
Lic. José Miguel García
Montevideo - Uruguay

2016-08-18 3:57 GMT-03:00 Samson Goddy :

> On 18 Aug 2016 3:02 a.m., "Dave Crossland"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17 August 2016 at 21:32, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to
> join if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get
> invaded by trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no
> evidence that that is a problem.)
> >
> >
> > Nor me - a luxury problem ;)
> >
> >
> > - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar
> Labs owned project?
> 
> 
>  From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it
> can qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project
> somehow connected to the Sugar community.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
> >>>
> >>> - Childsplay
> >>> - Scratch
> >>> - Squeak
> >>> - Tux Math
> >>> - Tux Paint
> >>> - XSCE
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure. And don't forget gcompris.
> >
> >
> > Okay cool :) I think a single mail to each project's user list will be
> sufficient, then.
> >
> >>
> >> What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi?
> What about RPi?
> >
> >
> > I think a single mail to each project's user list would also be fine.
> >
> >> Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?
> >
> >
> > They will create a Sugar SKU if we can order 500 units or more, and they
> will donate to Sugar Labs the same amount or more that they pay to MS for
> Windows
> >
> Seems fair. I have been trying to run Ubuntu for weeks now. The One
> Education tech guy Matthew told me to wait.
> > (One Education doesn't use the XO trademark owned by OLPC Inc)
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Dave
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Samson Goddy]

On 18 Aug 2016 3:02 a.m., "Dave Crossland"  wrote:
>
>
> On 17 August 2016 at 21:32, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to
join if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get
invaded by trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no
evidence that that is a problem.)
>
>
> Nor me - a luxury problem ;)
>
>
> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar
Labs owned project?


 From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
connected to the Sugar community.
>>>
>>>
>>> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>>>
>>> - Childsplay
>>> - Scratch
>>> - Squeak
>>> - Tux Math
>>> - Tux Paint
>>> - XSCE
>>
>>
>> Sure. And don't forget gcompris.
>
>
> Okay cool :) I think a single mail to each project's user list will be
sufficient, then.
>
>>
>> What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi?
What about RPi?
>
>
> I think a single mail to each project's user list would also be fine.
>
>> Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?
>
>
> They will create a Sugar SKU if we can order 500 units or more, and they
will donate to Sugar Labs the same amount or more that they pay to MS for
Windows
>
Seems fair. I have been trying to run Ubuntu for weeks now. The One
Education tech guy Matthew told me to wait.
> (One Education doesn't use the XO trademark owned by OLPC Inc)
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> 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] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 August 2016 at 21:32, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>
>

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
> if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get invaded by
> trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no evidence that
> that is a problem.)
>

Nor me - a luxury problem ;)


> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
 owned project?

>>>
>>> From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
>>> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
>>> connected to the Sugar community.
>>>
>>
>> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>>
>> - Childsplay
>> - Scratch
>> - Squeak
>> - Tux Math
>> - Tux Paint
>> - XSCE
>>
>
> Sure. And don't forget gcompris.
>

Okay cool :) I think a single mail to each project's user list will be
sufficient, then.


> What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi? What
> about RPi?
>

I think a single mail to each project's user list would also be fine.

Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?
>

They will create a Sugar SKU if we can order 500 units or more, and they
will donate to Sugar Labs the same amount or more that they pay to MS for
Windows

(One Education doesn't use the XO trademark owned by OLPC Inc)

-- 
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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
>
> On 17 August 2016 at 21:11, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
>
>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I 
> mentioned
> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>

 I don't recall. Could be me :)

>>>
>>> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
>>> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself
>>> that we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>>>
>>> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to
>>> be counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>>>
>>
>> I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
>> parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
>> also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
>> opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.
>>
>
> Since it is libre software, anyone can be a user; thus you are proposing
> that anyone who self-asserts to become a voting member by emailing
> memb...@sugarlabs.org should be added to the membership list (which I
> propose is itself a mailman mailing list.)
>

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get invaded by
trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no evidence that
that is a problem.)

>
> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>
>
>> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
>>> owned project?
>>>
>>
>> From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
>> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
>> connected to the Sugar community.
>>
>
> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>
> - Childsplay
> - Scratch
> - Squeak
> - Tux Math
> - Tux Paint
> - XSCE
>
>
Sure. And don't forget gcompris. (Although I recall there are some versions
of Scratch that were not FOSS.)

What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi? What
about RPi? Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?

-walter

> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 August 2016 at 21:11, Walter Bender  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>>

 On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
 wrote:

> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.


 https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
 representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
 in my recent post. Was one appointed?

>>>
>>> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>>>
>>
>> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
>> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself
>> that we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>>
>> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
>> counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>>
>
> I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
> parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
> also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
> opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.
>

Since it is libre software, anyone can be a user; thus you are proposing
that anyone who self-asserts to become a voting member by emailing
memb...@sugarlabs.org should be added to the membership list (which I
propose is itself a mailman mailing list.)

I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.


> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
>> owned project?
>>
>
> From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
> connected to the Sugar community.
>

Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?

- Childsplay
- Scratch
- Squeak
- Tux Math
- Tux Paint
- XSCE

-- 
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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
 membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
 appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
>>> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
>>> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>>>
>>
>> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>>
>
> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>

+1

>
> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself that
> we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>
> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
> counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>

I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.

>
> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
> owned project?
>

>From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
connected to the Sugar community.

>
> - is the proposed strategy of contacting anyone who has contributed or
> even just registered with SL to ask if they would like to be a member (and
> providing criteria if they say yes) appropriate?
>

+1

Of course, other SLOB members may feel otherwise. They are welcome to chime
in.

-walter



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
>> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
>> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>>
>
> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>

I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion point
(and possible immediate motion :)

This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself that
we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are

- what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
counted as a Sugar Labs member?

- what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
owned project?

- is the proposed strategy of contacting anyone who has contributed or even
just registered with SL to ask if they would like to be a member (and
providing criteria if they say yes) appropriate?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>

I don't recall. Could be me :)

-walter



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.


https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
in my recent post. Was one appointed?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.


>
>
>
> 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
>

Can someone from the infrastructure committee please take care of this?

-walter

>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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