[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Ombudsman

[James Cameron]

Thanks for minutes.

There was concern about voting without meeting, or board meetings by
mail.  It is legal if board decides it is legal.

Meetings by mail are something I've had to deal with in other groups.

Issue revolves around quorum.

Being present in a meeting means a board member can hear discussion,
and can talk.  Quorum is a minimum number of board members present.

For a meeting in person, board can see each other, and can know that
each can hear discussion.

For a meeting in internet relay chat, board can see writing of each,
and can know that each was present up to their last chat.

For a meeting by mail, situation is difficult.  Mail is not guaranteed
delivery.  You don't know if mail was read.  So you don't know if
quorum exists.  A president has to prove that quorum exists.

One method is; "if you have nothing to say, then say it."  This
informs meeting that you are present, and is a substitute for body
language at in person meetings.

Another method is for president to require and count a response to
every motion.

Decision making by e-mail also tends to devolve into discussion, and
when a motion is changed by a reply; all previous votes may have to be
ignored and new votes made.

I've had several instances where an original post got a minority vote,
then a reply changed motion slightly, and reply got a minority vote of
remaining members.  It isn't clear if original or changed motion had a
majority.

(Some parliaments handle this with an "amended motion becomes
substantive motion" technique, and seconding of motions before
discussion can occur, but this can cost extra time by e-mail.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_and_amendment_%28election%29

Also, when using internet relay chat, board members might also post
"+0", "i hear you", "no comment", or "abstain", to show their presence
more clearly.  There can be many minutes between last chat and ping
timeout departure.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:30:58PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> FYI, Bert has agreed to continue in the role as ombudsman [1] for Sugar Labs.
> 
> Minutes from today's meeting are available at [2].
> 
> regards.
> 
> -walter
> 
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> [1]http://www.sugarlabs.org
> [2]
> [1] [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman
> [2] [4]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-02-12
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [2] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman
> [4] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-02-12

> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/