[IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 16

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are not 
for the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions. A majority of the Board 
members
commented on these motions before the meeting. These comments were 
consistent with the comments made at the meeting with a couple of 
exceptions.

We need to come to a consensus on the motions before they are presented 
to the Board. With the exception of motions to authorize payments, I 
don't see that any of these motions have an urgency that justifies their 
being passed immediately nor any harm to Sugar Labs resulting from their 
not being passed on June 3.

I appreciate the work and enthusiasm that you have brought to the Vision 
motion. However, I don't understand your apparent insensitivity to the 
obvious fact that these issues are very important to the community and 
deserve the time needed to obtain community understanding and commitment.

You have provided a valuable framework in which to have these 
discussions and that is a major contribution. I hope that when the 
community discussion has reached consensus on the wording of a vision 
statement that you will be happy with the result and proud of your 
contribution to it.

Tony

On 06/04/2016 05:46 AM, iaep-request at lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:42:41 -0600
> From: Dave Crossland<dave at lab6.com>
> To: Walter Bender<walter.bender at gmail.com>
> Cc: iaep<iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>, SLOBs<slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org>
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by
> 	a	member
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEozd0zuLEJfMVHu3YK83-0Jkj-=+Yw=49aj6+2P2Wiqr8zkeQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Walter Bender<walter.bender at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland<dave at lab6.com>  wrote:
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender<walter.bender at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland<dave at lab6.com>  wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the
>>>>> >>>>current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle
>>>> >>>discussion of motions before a vote. There must be some way to get board
>>>> >>>members to engage between meetings.
>>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>We have a wonderful way to discuss between meetings, and even vote on
>>> >>motions: Email.
>>> >>
>> >
>> >But by-and-large the SLOB members have not been participating in those
>> >discussions :P
>> >
> I hope that making the monthly/weekly meeting focused procedurally on
> decision-making instead of discussions will smoke them out.