[IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 August 2016 at 21:11, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>>>>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>>>>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
>>>> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
>>>> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>>>
>>
>> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
>> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself
>> that we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>>
>> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
>> counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>>
>
> I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
> parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
> also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
> opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.
>

Since it is libre software, anyone can be a user; thus you are proposing
that anyone who self-asserts to become a voting member by emailing
members at sugarlabs.org should be added to the membership list (which I
propose is itself a mailman mailing list.)

I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.


> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
>> owned project?
>>
>
> From 10000 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
> connected to the Sugar community.
>

Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?

- Childsplay
- Scratch
- Squeak
- Tux Math
- Tux Paint
- XSCE

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160817/8fa4a986/attachment-0001.html>