[IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs Position on SoaS
walter.bender at gmail.com
Fri Sep 18 15:55:39 EDT 2009
I think your strategy for reaching consensus on this issue is a good
one, but somewhat at odds with our rules of governance. According to
think we should be the Oversight Board is responsible for convening a
"The Oversight Board will selecting members for the Decision Panel...
A Decision Panel will solicit community input, discuss (in private if
they deem it necessary), reach a conclusion internally, and produce a
report documenting their conclusion. (Anyone may submit advice to a
Decision Panel.) The Oversight Board will review and ratify Decision
Perhaps your survey of SLOBs should be in regard to whether a decision
panel should be formed:
We should discuss it further.
In any case, I think we should meet on Friday of next week.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> > Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
> > "official" answer on this. Soon.
> > Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs
> > distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?
> Martin Dengler has persuaded me that having SLOBs vote on this issue
> could help us move forward, even though there obviously isn't
> community consensus on it yet. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of
> having SLOBs vote on community-wide disagreements, but I have a plan
> for that, which I'll explain in a moment.
> First, I'd need to know what the specific questions (with yes/no
> answers) that people are interested in a vote on at the SLOBs
> meeting next week would be. Some things I've read that might
> be those questions go something like:
> "Should Sugar Labs be a Linux distributor, rather than just an
> upstream producing Sugar releases?"
> "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and
> refuse to endorse one over another?"
> "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community
> to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
> To avoid forcing a vote on questions that shouldn't be answered by
> SLOBs, I propose that the answers for each vote should be:
> * Yes
> * No
> * We should talk about this question more before voting on it
> * We shouldn't vote on this question for some reason (e.g. ambiguity
> in the question, or wanting to abstain)
> To add a question to the list (I'm not going to add any of them
> myself), please add to the bullet points at:
> If you don't like the idea of this becoming a SLOBs vote, it would be
> useful to say that too.
> - Chris, wearing SLOB hat.
> Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org>
> One Laptop Per Child
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the IAEP