Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

On 19 June 2016 at 13:20, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> Unfortunately, this is not my vision of Sugar Labs or Sugar. I see Sugar
> as an educational opportunity provided to users of the OLPC XO
> and others. Naturally, it takes software engineers to develop and maintain
> this software, but the vision must be about the result - Sugar and the
> benefits if offers in an educational setting.
>

Do you think the existing mission statement that Laura quoted above conveys
this result adequately?

I am unsure if you think the mission should be changed, or kept the same.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

On 19 June 2016 at 13:50, Sean DALY  wrote:

> If the subject is Pending Motion 2016-33, I am opposed to it for the
> previously stated reasons.


That motion failed 9 days ago, since email voting is only open for 7 days.
Sorry I hadn't updated the
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions page yet, I have
now done so.


> The key activity of SL is developing software designed to help children
> learn, not providing a friendly environment to learn programming of
> software for children.


Do you think the existing mission statement that Laura quoted above conveys
this key activity adequately?

I am unsure if you think the mission should be changed, or kept the same.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Claudia!

On 19 June 2016 at 13:38, Claudia Urrea  wrote:

>
> I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass,
> pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend
> on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.
>

Adam asked me to diligently maintain the list of SLOB decisions going
forwards, that Walter had put together from archives, at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

I've been doing the best I can, but since currently Members have no way of
knowing when motions pass or fail - because email votes are done on the
SLOBs list which is not available to members, with good reason - then I
posted the motion on June 7:

"to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the
SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists."

This was - as far as I know - not seconded or discussed by most SLOB
members.

What do you think about this motion?

Motions are posted and by the time I read them, they have received several
> comments and have evolved into something different.
>

I kindly disagree with this characterisation :)

The way I see it, motions are posted in good faith by the Member who posts
them, and by the time you read them, they ought to have received many
comments, but those comments do not change the motion in any way. The
comments may influence each board member's position to second the motion or
not, and to vote for or against the motion. If the motion does not pass,
the comments can help the poster to refine their idea and post a new motion.

I am curious why you think comment on a motion change it? :)

Could we call them something different before they have received enough
> comments and have been refined, so they can quickly move to approval
> process?
>

In the case of Caryl's finance manager motion, and Lionel and my vision
statement motion, a draft was posted on Google Docs or the SL wiki weeks in
advance of the SLOB meeting with many calls for comments on the draft.

Despite this, the SLOBs do not actively engage in the drafting, and bring
up issues at the meeting, blocking other motions from even being named at
the meeting.

So I find the SLOBs meetings very frustrating, because motions that have an
open drafting period are ignored, and motions that are posted outside the
7-day window before a SLOB monthly meeting and can be commented on via
email are ignored.

To help SLOBs quickly move to the approval/disapproval process, I posted 2
motions on June 3:

"to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB meetings: the
chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will make any
announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will announce
the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB member will
announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the motion; the
chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are voted on; the
chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of any topic
until the meeting ends at the time scheduled."

and

"to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current practice
of requiring a seconding before voting."

These were also both - as far as I know - neither seconded nor discussed by
most SLOB members.

What do you think about these motions?

I do not know what else I can do to help SLOBs quickly move to the
approval/disapproval process; I have been providing as much administrative
assistance as I can, and offering my best suggestions.

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

Re: [IAEP] 172 XO-1s for $24 each (+ freight) $4,000 total

[Dave Crossland]

On 16 June 2016 at 09:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Do we want these or not? :)
>

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

Re: [IAEP] [Sur] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Sean DALY]

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

This page is very useful.


On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Claudia Urrea  wrote:

> Dave and all,
>
> I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass,
> pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend
> on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.
>
> Motions are posted and by the time I read them, they have received several
> comments and have evolved into something different. Could we call them
> something different before they have received enough comments and have been
> refined, so they can quickly move to approval process?
>
> Claudia
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4 June 2016 at 00:07, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3 June 2016 at 14:38, Adam Holt  wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Did this motion pass?


 Yes.


> I can't find a record of it in my email.


>>> How do Members know when motions pass or fail?
>>>
>>
>> I am waiting for an answer to this question.
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Lista olpc-Sur
> olpc-...@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Sean DALY]

If the subject is Pending Motion 2016-33, I am opposed to it for the
previously stated reasons. The key activity of SL is developing software
designed to help children learn, not providing a friendly environment to
learn programming of software for children.

Sean.


On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
> SLOB.
>
> On 3 June 2016 at 14:25, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement:
>>
>> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project
>> of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part
>> of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers
>> around the world who are passionate about providing educational
>> opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar
>> Labs(R) is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate
>> development."
>>
>> To the new proposed text:
>>
>> "Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
>> develop and deploy high-quality Free/Libre Software that facilitates
>> self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
>> of all continents."
>>
>> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
>>
>> - Current Vision Statement is not wrong – but certainly is not inspiring
>> or unique.
>> - Current Vision fails to define what we do as an output: we provide
>> infrastructure so that a community of people can produce and deliver
>> software to children.
>> - Current Vision fails to identify our unique "selling"
>> points: self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young
>> children of all continents.
>>
>> Blessings and thank you very much for your attention.
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>>
>> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
>> IRC kaametza
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>>
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Laura

Unfortunately, this is not my vision of Sugar Labs or Sugar. I see Sugar 
as an educational opportunity provided to users of the OLPC XO
and others. Naturally, it takes software engineers to develop and 
maintain this software, but the vision must be about the result - Sugar 
and the

benefits if offers in an educational setting.

Tony

On 06/19/2016 05:06 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member 
of SLOB.


On 3 June 2016 at 14:25, Laura Vargas > wrote:


I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement:

"About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member
project of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation.
Originally part of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs
coordinates volunteers around the world who are passionate about
providing educational opportunities to children through the Sugar
Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by donations and is
seeking funding to accelerate development."

To the new proposed text:

"Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to
design, develop and deploy high-quality Free/LibreSoftware that
facilitates self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration
among young children of all continents."

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

- Current Vision Statement is not wrong – but certainly is not
inspiring or unique.
- Current Vision fails to define what we do as an output: we
provide infrastructure so that a community of people can produce
and deliver software to children.
- Current Vision fails to identify our unique "selling"
points: self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration
among young children of all continents.

Blessings and thank you very much for your attention.
-- 
Laura V.

I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!


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




--
Cheers
Dave


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


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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

On 4 June 2016 at 00:07, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 3 June 2016 at 14:38, Adam Holt  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Did this motion pass?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>> I can't find a record of it in my email.
>>
>>
> How do Members know when motions pass or fail?
>

I am waiting for an answer to this question.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
SLOB.

On 3 June 2016 at 14:25, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement:
>
> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project
> of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part
> of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers
> around the world who are passionate about providing educational
> opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar
> Labs(R) is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate
> development."
>
> To the new proposed text:
>
> "Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
> develop and deploy high-quality Free/Libre Software that facilitates
> self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
> of all continents."
>
> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
>
> - Current Vision Statement is not wrong – but certainly is not inspiring
> or unique.
> - Current Vision fails to define what we do as an output: we provide
> infrastructure so that a community of people can produce and deliver
> software to children.
> - Current Vision fails to identify our unique "selling"
> points: self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young
> children of all continents.
>
> Blessings and thank you very much for your attention.
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



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

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
SLOB.

On 3 June 2016 at 02:46, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement:
>
> Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
> develop and deploy high-quality Free Software that facilitates
> self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
> of all continents.  Join us!
>
> I regret the late submission of this proposal, but not until today I
> understood the vision is not about the software but the community. It is a
> summary of what has been written in the wiki, so that it has the ideal
> length of a vision statement while describing our reason to exist and at
> the same time serving as an inspirational quote to be part of this
> adventure. For reference on how to write a vision statement please visit:
> https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/write-good-vision-statement/
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



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

Re: [IAEP] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
SLOB.

On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva  wrote:

> If I was a SLOB I would support this motion. The passivity of the SLOBs is
> disappointing. It is better to vote and fail, than to linger.
>
> El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
> Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
> meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will
> make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will
> announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB
> member will announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the
> motion; the chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are
> voted on; the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of
> any topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled.
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop 
> project!)IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
>


-- 
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] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
SLOB.

On 3 June 2016 at 23:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
>
> On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland  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.
>



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

Re: [IAEP] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
SLOB.

On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent
> to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.
>



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