On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson wrote:
> You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion
> (email or otherwise)
This is simply, factually, false.
In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that
(a) the GPL motion - *
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
Hi Sameer!
Would you be able to attend?
On 9 June 2016 at 05:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> OK for me, Sameer does this work for you?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>>
>> On 6 June 2016 at 08:30, Sean DALY wrote:
>> > sorry, June 14th is a Tuesday... can't do it t
On 21 June 2016 at 11:35, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
> Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is
> "precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I
> am proposing it
I am happy you and Seb agree that clearing the logjam at meetings is
needed
On 21 June 2016 at 10:47, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva
>> wrote:
>>> El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió:
>>>
>>> Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
>>> me
On 21 June 2016 at 11:56, Sean DALY wrote:
> an agreed upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't
> likely need to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach
> has been transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years,
> but
Similarly, what d
On 21 June 2016 at 11:41, Adam Holt wrote:
> it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive Director
> (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these kinds of
> high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible apprised of
> deliberations -- while preserving interi
On 21 June 2016 at 10:49, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It is my bel
Thanks for posting Walter! This is all good news :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
== Sugar Digest ==
1. Marvin Minsky was fond of saying that there is nothing more dangerous
than when a roomful of people all agree with each other. We don't have to
worry about that in the Sugar community!!! Marvin also observed that "it's
very important to have friends who can solve problems you
Hi, Adam
I don't think this is relevant to this motion. Clearly, if such a
negotiation were to happen, the Board could move to consider the
matter in 'executive session'. In the meantime, there is no reason not
to make votes public (and the discussion of them in the meetings
which is already p
I agree with Adam's statemen. There is another possible scenario: an agreed
upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't likely need
to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach has been
transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years, but the
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Walter Bender
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> 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
Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is
"precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I am
proposing it
Caryl
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Sebastian Silva
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> El 21/06/16 a las 09:47, Walt
El 21/06/16 a las 09:47, Walter Bender escribió:
>
> While I appreciate that such a mechanism might be useful in cleaning
> the pipes, I think that we really want to take advantage of the
> meetings for discussions. It was my hope that discussion about motions
> could be largely held before hand
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Laura Vargas
wrote:
>
>
> 2016-06-09 6:21 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> Laura,
>>
>> Do you know when in November this meeting is? It was not apparent to me
>> looking at the website.
>>
>>
> Walter,
>
> Are you planning to attend?
>
I don't know if I can. I am
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> 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 an
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> 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
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> 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
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Laura Vargas
wrote:
>
>
> 2016-06-13 19:05 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> I have to say I with Samuel Greenfeld on this one. There are lots of
>> potential issues with these machines (depending upon how they have been
>> stored and maintained.) They could well ha
20 matches
Mail list logo
