[IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Claudia!

On 19 June 2016 at 13:38, Claudia Urrea <callaurrea at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass,
> pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend
> on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.
>

Adam asked me to diligently maintain the list of SLOB decisions going
forwards, that Walter had put together from archives, at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

I've been doing the best I can, but since currently Members have no way of
knowing when motions pass or fail - because email votes are done on the
SLOBs list which is not available to members, with good reason - then I
posted the motion on June 7:

"to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the
SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists."

This was - as far as I know - not seconded or discussed by most SLOB
members.

What do you think about this motion?

Motions are posted and by the time I read them, they have received several
> comments and have evolved into something different.
>

I kindly disagree with this characterisation :)

The way I see it, motions are posted in good faith by the Member who posts
them, and by the time you read them, they ought to have received many
comments, but those comments do not change the motion in any way. The
comments may influence each board member's position to second the motion or
not, and to vote for or against the motion. If the motion does not pass,
the comments can help the poster to refine their idea and post a new motion.

I am curious why you think comment on a motion change it? :)

Could we call them something different before they have received enough
> comments and have been refined, so they can quickly move to approval
> process?
>

In the case of Caryl's finance manager motion, and Lionel and my vision
statement motion, a draft was posted on Google Docs or the SL wiki weeks in
advance of the SLOB meeting with many calls for comments on the draft.

Despite this, the SLOBs do not actively engage in the drafting, and bring
up issues at the meeting, blocking other motions from even being named at
the meeting.

So I find the SLOBs meetings very frustrating, because motions that have an
open drafting period are ignored, and motions that are posted outside the
7-day window before a SLOB monthly meeting and can be commented on via
email are ignored.

To help SLOBs quickly move to the approval/disapproval process, I posted 2
motions on June 3:

"to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB meetings: the
chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will make any
announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will announce
the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB member will
announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the motion; the
chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are voted on; the
chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of any topic
until the meeting ends at the time scheduled."

and

"to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current practice
of requiring a seconding before voting."

These were also both - as far as I know - neither seconded nor discussed by
most SLOB members.

What do you think about these motions?

I do not know what else I can do to help SLOBs quickly move to the
approval/disapproval process; I have been providing as much administrative
assistance as I can, and offering my best suggestions.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160619/956a1e64/attachment-0001.html>