[IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 16

[Tony Anderson]

Dave

Please compare the current version with the original proposed by Lionel 
Laske or yours before the goals were separated from the Vision or the
one proposed by Laura. Do you think that there is wide-spread agreement 
on the statement or that there has been no change in the past two
months?

When a motion fails to achieve a second, there is a reason. After 
discussion and rewriting, the motion to distribute funds to the mentors 
got my
second immediately.

The purpose of the Board meeting is to conduct the business of Sugar 
Labs. Note: at the last meeting, the emphasis on voting on a series of 
motions
resulted in no report from the Translation Community Manager.

Tony

On 06/05/2016 07:02 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 03:35, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net 
> <mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net>> wrote:
>
>     This discussion of procedures misses the point. Board meetings are
>     not for the purpose of voting yea/nea on motions.
>
>
> What do you think the purposes of the board meetings are, then?
>
>     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.
>
>
> I disagree completely :) This is not a Quaker Meeting House! :) 
> Consensus is explicitly not required: Motions can pass if 1 board 
> member is willing to second the motion and 4 affirmative votes 
> (majority of 7 seats) are made.
>
>     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 suggest you refer to Walter's email to understand the harm that has 
> been done.
>
>     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.
>
>
> The community has had TWO MONTHS to get involved so far. How much time 
> do you think is needed?
>
> Perhaps I should be drafting a 2017 vision?
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160605/e03ab88c/attachment.html>