Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 01:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> I confess I'm not motivated to propose any new Motions to current Board as
> none has even made it to a meeting, none has get seconded and besides Tony,
> until today, I have 0 feedback from all other SLOBs.

I sympathise.

Perhaps Claudia and Tony's recent comments about having all motions
undergo an open drafting process, and requiring a SLOB to post the
motion and (currently, as I understand it, therefore) another SLOB to
second the motion before the other 5 vote on it, is what the SLOB
would prefer.

I encourage the SLOB to make a motion to make that process required in
future meetings, if that is the case.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Laura Vargas]

2016-06-21 12:46 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

> On 21 June 2016 at 00:41, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> > I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I
> > proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the
> Sugar
> > Project's Translation Fund?
> >
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html
>
> Hope this is OK:
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FDecisions=revision=99084=99083
>
> > I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look
> > like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the
> > motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds.
>
> Are those motions listed in
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions ?
>

I'm basically refering to the same Motions you just add.

I confess I'm not motivated to propose any new Motions to current Board as
none has even made it to a meeting, none has get seconded and besides Tony,
until today, I have 0 feedback from all other SLOBs.

 ;D

Regards and thanks for your help!

-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 00:41, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I
> proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the Sugar
> Project's Translation Fund?
>
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html

Hope this is OK:

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FDecisions=revision=99084=99083

> I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look
> like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the
> motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds.

Are those motions listed in
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions ?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Laura Vargas]

Hi Dave,

2016-06-21 11:37 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
> Hi
>
> On 20 June 2016 at 02:43, Tony Anderson  wrote:
>
>> I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with
>> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14.
>
>
> Walter added those; I've only maintained the new motions.
>
> Its a wiki, you can edit it, so if you'd like the old motions in 2014 and
> earlier to be numbered, please do it :)
>
>
>> However, a quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on
>> the motions.
>>
>
> I think this is a misreading; please pay attention to the comments in
> brackets at the end of each motion, recording the votes visible to members,
> where you can see that 6 of the last 7 motions were not seconded, which I
> can not interpret as "decisive action."
>
>
>> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as
>> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
>>
>
> Check the history; I have done so.
>
>
>> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting
>> public log).
>
>
> I have done so.
>
>
>> For pending motions, use the words by the member who proposed it, with
>> their name and the date submitted (or last amended).
>>
>
> Its a wiki, you can edit it. Please add the names.
>
>
>> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not
>> made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).
>>
>
> I believe those motions were posted via email to be voted on at the board
> meeting, so while the board didn't have time to second or vote on them in
> the meeting - due to the inefficient way the meetings are conducted - they
> were posted and thus stand as failed.
>
> But I have removed them, since they are duplicate motions.
>
>
>> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting
>> dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3,
>
>
>> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from
>> the current voting process, keeping focus.'
>>
>> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be
>> made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
>> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no
>> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give
>> for failed motions.
>>
>
> The dates in the headlines are the dates the motions were required to have
> been voted on; if they didn't get a quorum of votes on that date, they
> automatically failed.
>
> I've added an explanation about this to the top of the page :)
>
>
>> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions.
>> All motions are shown as agreed or failed.
>>
>
> That's correct; no motions have been posted within the last 7 days that I
> am aware of, but, since SLOBs email list is used for posting motions, it is
> possible there were motions that I as a member am not aware of.
>
>
I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I
proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the Sugar
Project's Translation Fund?

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-April/017801.html

I am not sure of how the future of SL Grants management is going to look
like, but it would be nice from SLOBs to comment, consider and second the
motions related to separe Grants accounts from the General funds.

Thanks in advance.

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



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 20 June 2016 at 02:43, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with
> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14.


Walter added those; I've only maintained the new motions.

Its a wiki, you can edit it, so if you'd like the old motions in 2014 and
earlier to be numbered, please do it :)


> However, a quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on
> the motions.
>

I think this is a misreading; please pay attention to the comments in
brackets at the end of each motion, recording the votes visible to members,
where you can see that 6 of the last 7 motions were not seconded, which I
can not interpret as "decisive action."


> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as
> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
>

Check the history; I have done so.


> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting
> public log).


I have done so.


> For pending motions, use the words by the member who proposed it, with
> their name and the date submitted (or last amended).
>

Its a wiki, you can edit it. Please add the names.


> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not
> made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).
>

I believe those motions were posted via email to be voted on at the board
meeting, so while the board didn't have time to second or vote on them in
the meeting - due to the inefficient way the meetings are conducted - they
were posted and thus stand as failed.

But I have removed them, since they are duplicate motions.


> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting
> dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3,


> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from
> the current voting process, keeping focus.'
>
> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be
> made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no
> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give
> for failed motions.
>

The dates in the headlines are the dates the motions were required to have
been voted on; if they didn't get a quorum of votes on that date, they
automatically failed.

I've added an explanation about this to the top of the page :)


> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions.
> All motions are shown as agreed or failed.
>

That's correct; no motions have been posted within the last 7 days that I
am aware of, but, since SLOBs email list is used for posting motions, it is
possible there were motions that I as a member am not aware of.

-- 
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] Oversight Board decisions page

[Caryl Bigenho]

Tony is correct. Motions A and B have not been voted on yet. I am hoping they 
will be at the July meeting. Watch for my finalized versions later this week 
when I finally get internet at my MT home.

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> 
> Hi, Dave
> 
>> On 06/20/2016 05:20 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
>> 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 have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with 
> 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14. However, a
> quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on the motions.
> 
> One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as 
> 'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
> Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board meeting 
> public log). For pending motions, use the words by the member who
> proposed it, with their name and the date submitted (or last amended).
> 
> In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not made 
> to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).
> 
> The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting dates. 
> According to the approved motion 2016-3,
> 
> 'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from the 
> current voting process, keeping focus.'
> 
> I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be made 
> on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
> one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no 
> recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give
> for failed motions.
> 
> If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions. All 
> motions are shown as agreed or failed.
> 
> Tony
> ___
> 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] Oversight Board decisions page

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

On 06/20/2016 05:20 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

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 have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with 
2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14. However, a

quick reading shows the board to have made decisive action on the motions.

One change I would like to see to this page. Mark pending motions as 
'proposed' or 'pending' and indicate who has submitted the motion.
Use the actual wording of the motion (normally shown in the Board 
meeting public log). For pending motions, use the words by the member who

proposed it, with their name and the date submitted (or last amended).

In many cases you have marked several motions as failed which were not 
made to the Board. (example, Motion 'B' 2016-28,29,30).


The dates above the motions do not seem to correspond to Board meeting 
dates. According to the approved motion 2016-3,


'Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from 
the current voting process, keeping focus.'


I had understood this to mean that urgent or emergency motions would be 
made on the SLOBs list and would be decided by email vote within
one week of the motion being moved and seconded. However, I have no 
recollection of this process being followed for most of the dates you give

for failed motions.

If I read this page correctly, you believe there are no pending motions. 
All motions are shown as agreed or failed.


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