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

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.)
>

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get invaded by
trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no evidence that
that is a problem.)

>
> 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
>
>
Sure. And don't forget gcompris. (Although I recall there are some versions
of Scratch that were not FOSS.)

What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi? What
about RPi? Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?

-walter

> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160817/7f51cc92/attachment.html>