Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 16

[Sebastian Silva]

Tony,

El 05/06/16 a las 01:14, Tony Anderson escribió:
> Note: at the last meeting, the emphasis on voting on a series of motions
> resulted in no report from the Translation Community Manager.
This is absurd. It is the duty of the Translation Community Manager to:

/"Report monthly to the Sugar Labs Oversight Board and to the community
and to the public on the status of the translations program, preferably
by blogging informally (blog posts can be any length) to
http://planet.sugarlabs.org using plain language that is understandable
to almost all."/

There is no reason this should happen at the meeting.

I have seen no activity in the translation team issue tracker:

https://github.com/sugarlabs-infra/translation-team/pulse/monthly

I expected to hear from Cjl already.

Regards,

Sebastian

___
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 16

[Sebastian Silva]

Sorry about this one I never send private messages, I'll write on list now.

:-)


El 05/06/16 a las 10:31, Dave Crossland escribió:
>
> On 5 June 2016 at 00:14, Tony Anderson  > wrote:
>
> Please compare the current version with the original proposed by
> Lionel Laske or yours before the goals were separated from the
> Vision or the
> one proposed by Laura. Do you think that there is wide-spread
> agreement on the statement or that there has been no change in the
> past two
> months? 
>
>  
>
> When a motion fails to achieve a second, there is a reason. After
> discussion and rewriting, the motion to distribute funds to the
> mentors got my
> second immediately.
>
>
> Over the two months there have been many comments and direct edits by
> members of the community; I have worked diligently to reflect those
> comments where people could not be bothered to make their own edits. 
>
> There was a motion to adopt it 2 months ago, and a motion to adopt it
> last meeting, and a motion to adopt it this meeting. 
>
> There will be a motion to adopt it at the next meeting, and if the
> community hasn't reached wide-spread agreement on the statement by
> then, I will give up. 
>  
>
> The purpose of the Board meeting is to conduct the business of
> Sugar Labs. Note: at the last meeting, the emphasis on voting on a
> series of motions
> resulted in no report from the Translation Community Manager.
>
>
> "Conducting the business" is a vague statement, but for me no business
> was conducted - it was a total failure - because I assert that in
> concrete terms that phrase means voting on motions, which is why I
> have posted a motion to establish a formal procedure for the meetings. 
>
> The procedure I posted allows for the report from the Translation
> Community Manager to be announced by the chair :) I expect that report
> to be on the wiki. Where is it? :)
>
>
> ___
> 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] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 16

[Dave Crossland]

On 5 June 2016 at 00:14, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> Please compare the current version with the original proposed by Lionel
> Laske or yours before the goals were separated from the Vision or the
> one proposed by Laura. Do you think that there is wide-spread agreement on
> the statement or that there has been no change in the past two
> months?
>

>
When a motion fails to achieve a second, there is a reason. After
> discussion and rewriting, the motion to distribute funds to the mentors got
> my
> second immediately.
>

Over the two months there have been many comments and direct edits by
members of the community; I have worked diligently to reflect those
comments where people could not be bothered to make their own edits.

There was a motion to adopt it 2 months ago, and a motion to adopt it last
meeting, and a motion to adopt it this meeting.

There will be a motion to adopt it at the next meeting, and if the
community hasn't reached wide-spread agreement on the statement by then, I
will give up.


> The purpose of the Board meeting is to conduct the business of Sugar Labs.
> Note: at the last meeting, the emphasis on voting on a series of motions
> resulted in no report from the Translation Community Manager.
>

"Conducting the business" is a vague statement, but for me no business was
conducted - it was a total failure - because I assert that in concrete
terms that phrase means voting on motions, which is why I have posted a
motion to establish a formal procedure for the meetings.

The procedure I posted allows for the report from the Translation Community
Manager to be announced by the chair :) I expect that report to be on the
wiki. Where is it? :)
___
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 16

[Tony Anderson]

Dave

Please compare the current version with the original proposed by Lionel 
Laske or yours before the goals were separated from the Vision or the
one proposed by Laura. Do you think that there is wide-spread agreement 
on the statement or that there has been no change in the past two

months?

When a motion fails to achieve a second, there is a reason. After 
discussion and rewriting, the motion to distribute funds to the mentors 
got my

second immediately.

The purpose of the Board meeting is to conduct the business of Sugar 
Labs. Note: at the last meeting, the emphasis on voting on a series of 
motions

resulted in no report from the Translation Community Manager.

Tony

On 06/05/2016 07:02 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:


Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 03:35, Tony Anderson > wrote:


This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are
not for the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions.


What do you think the purposes of the board meetings are, then?

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.


I disagree completely :) This is not a Quaker Meeting House! :) 
Consensus is explicitly not required: Motions can pass if 1 board 
member is willing to second the motion and 4 affirmative votes 
(majority of 7 seats) are made.


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 suggest you refer to Walter's email to understand the harm that has 
been done.


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.


The community has had TWO MONTHS to get involved so far. How much time 
do you think is needed?


Perhaps I should be drafting a 2017 vision?

--
Cheers
Dave


___
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 16

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 4 June 2016 at 03:35, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are not for
> the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions.
>

What do you think the purposes of the board meetings are, then?


> 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.
>

I disagree completely :) This is not a Quaker Meeting House! :) Consensus
is explicitly not required: Motions can pass if 1 board member is willing
to second the motion and 4 affirmative votes (majority of 7 seats) are
made.


> 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 suggest you refer to Walter's email to understand the harm that has been
done.


> 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.
>

The community has had TWO MONTHS to get involved so far. How much time do
you think is needed?

Perhaps I should be drafting a 2017 vision?

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
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 16

[Tony Anderson]

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
To: Walter Bender
Cc: iaep, SLOBs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by
a   member
Message-ID: