Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 115

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson 

Hi Dave,

I am new to the Board, but in most organizations they are specified in 
the bylaws (which I must confess I have never seen). In the absence, 
most organizations use Robert's Rules of Order.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:40 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 30 June 2016 at 12:07, Tony Anderson  wrote:

According to standard rules of order

Where are these?
.



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

Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 115

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson 

Dave,

AFIK, it is true. Do you have any reference to show that the Sugar Labs 
Board has any different bylaws? I am new to the Board
and so at some historical point, the normal rules of order could have 
been changed.


The motion was not made by Sebastian, but by Walter. I think you need to 
re-read the log of the meeting. Non-members of the Board are welcome to 
propose actions by the Board, but Board members must take the action, if 
they so chose.


The vote by 'private thread' is not a Benghazi conspiracy theory. There 
is no one on the Board who is conspriing to keep secrets from the 
membership.
I really think your persistence in accusing the Board of conspiracy is 
out of line.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:

On 30 June 2016 at 12:07, Tony Anderson  wrote:

I posted no motion on June 4.
...
Making a comment is not a motion.

My apologies; you drafted it and I posted it in thread "Motion: to
undertake a fund raising drive." and it was not seconded.


According to standard rules of order, a motion must be 'moved' by
a member of the Board.

As far as I know, this is false.

Here is a copy of my earlier email which you did not respond to in your reply:

--- 8< ---

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

--- 8< ---

I would like you to comment on these 4 points :)
.



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

Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 115

2016-06-30 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 30 June 2016 at 12:07, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> I posted no motion on June 4.
> ...
> Making a comment is not a motion.

My apologies; you drafted it and I posted it in thread "Motion: to
undertake a fund raising drive." and it was not seconded.

> According to standard rules of order, a motion must be 'moved' by
> a member of the Board.

As far as I know, this is false.

Here is a copy of my earlier email which you did not respond to in your reply:

--- 8< ---

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

--- 8< ---

I would like you to comment on these 4 points :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 115

2016-06-30 Thread Tony Anderson 

Hi, Dave

I posted no motion on June 4. According to standard rules of order, a 
motion must be 'moved' by a member of the Board. Making a comment is not 
a motion.


Tony

On 06/30/2016 06:00 PM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

Send IAEP mailing list submissions to
iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
iaep-ow...@lists.sugarlabs.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of IAEP digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder (Dave Crossland)
2. Re: Simplified Version of A & B for Tomorrow's Meeting
   (Dave Crossland)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:47:55 -0400
From: Dave Crossland 
To: Tony Anderson 
Cc: IAEP SugarLabs , sugar-devel

Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 30 June 2016 at 06:56, Tony Anderson  wrote:

I hope Chris Leonard's report will include the present status of his
arrangements with the Conservancy (is he officially on board, has he been
paid his stipend for May or for June? I would also like the report to
include the present status of the Nigerian project. In particular was the
first milestone met (setup) and payment made?

Chris, I would also like to see any and all material you have prepared
for the blog :)


I hope that Adam or someone will be able to report on our financial 'month'
with starting balance, revenue and expenses during the period, and ending
balance.

Me too :)


I am opposed to the second motion in the agenda.

My objections are:

(1) The only method to implement a donation is to write a paper check and
send it to the Conservancy. There is an attempt to provide a 'donate' option
to the Sugar Labs website, but I believe it has not been implemented.

I do not think that SLOB should be bothered with motions about which
methods of donation are permitted, and which are currently
implemented. That is a matter for Conservancy to decide and its Member
Projects should allow for funds to be accepted to their earmarked
funds with any of those methods; and it is up to the project's members
to implement the methods.


(2) Such a fund-raising activity should have a target amount. As far as know
this goal has not been set.

I agree that  fund-raising activity should have a target amount.

You posted a motion on June 4th:

"to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to
enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or other
means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the Financial
Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will
show progress in donations toward the goal."

This was not seconded.

Lionel then called for motions to be minimised.

I therefore expect to carry out fund raising activities without making
motions to SLOBs for approval, and without a Finance Manager
appointed, since it seems no one at SLOBs is interested in giving
meaningful feedback on either motions about fund raising or about the
FM position.

I will take into account feedback offered to me by other members.


(3) I have no problem requesting each member to make a donation in an amount
they can afford. However, I strongly object asking members to identify
themselves as not having the means to make a donation of a specfied amount.
A statement like 'In order to meet our financial goal for the year, members
should try to donate at least $50 although donations in any amount are
welcome' would be acceptable.

Sounds good!


(4) We could identify donors of say $100 or more as sponsors or partners or
associates or sustaining members, There are many such designations
available.

Sure


The 'prominent placement' and 'release codename' are not acceptable without
clarification.

Cool, when I get there I'll let the community know


According to Dave Crossland, Caryl Bigenho wants the motion on the Financial
Manager to be on the agenda. Has she withdrawn her propsoed motion.

No, we haven't heard from her. I have now taken the liberty of posting
the 2 motions with my suggestions which she did not review.


--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:54:15 -0400
From: Dave Crossland 
To: Caryl Bigenho 
Cc: Adam Holt , samson goddy
, José Miguel García ,
Claudia Urrea , Lionel Laske