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

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Claudia!

On 20 June 2016 at 14:04, Claudia Urrea <callaurrea at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the wiki page summarizes the status of the motions, but we have to
> find a way to link to the discussion or process. Should we number them? or
> code them in a way that it helps the process?

The motions are numbered, eg the first motion of the year is 2016-01, and so on.

The discussions are spread out on various email threads and IRC meetings.

I think using loom.io could help keep the discussions in one place.

>> "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?
>
> I replied to Sameer's email. I agreed with the process he recommended.

Could you be more specific about which email from Sameer you are
referring to? I can't find anything from you replying to Sameer,
neither in my own email archive nor on mail-archive.com

> I like the idea of having a member of SLOBs sponsor a motion.

Currently motions require a member of SLOBs to second a motion, before
others are required to vote on it.

> I think it is
> confusing to have anyone in the SL community propose motions. What do you
> think?

I think the purpose of the board is to serve the community, so
disallowing members from posting motions is for me moving away from
that purpose.

>From time to time members want to get the board to approve their
ideas, or at least to give them feedback on those ideas.

As a member, I want to see feedback from each board member about each
motion, even if this is a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote without additional
context.

>>> 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 :)
>
> I did not say this is bad, but I think some ideas are worth considering and
> discussing before they become a motion that needs to be considered for a
> vote.

I think voting should be "cheap" in the sense that it should be quick,
easy, efficient, etc.

In the case that motions have been openly drafted, there has been
discussion that died down and then at the board meeting there were
surprising objections that could have been raised earlier. Please
refer to Walter's email following the last board meeting where he
acknowledged the problems with the last meeting.

In the case that motions have been posted without open drafting, there
has been very little discussion.

I think that if the discussion happens after a motion is posted, and a
motion fails to be agreed, that's fine - then the discussion will
indicate how it can be improved and redrafted and reposted.

My current frustration is mainly that there is little or no feedback
on motions. If I or another member thinks something is important and
posts it as a motion, not just an idea to chat about on the list, then
I expect to see consideration of the ideas in the motion.

> I don't think all ideas need to be a motions.

I agree that not all ideas need to be motions.

Could you specify which motions you believe did not require the
board's dis/approval?

>> 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? :)
>
> Again, I am saying the idea evolves into something more interesting when
> they receive feedback. Should we still vote for the initial idea or should
> be refine it?

I think it should be voted on, even if the vote is to pro-actively
disagree with it.

> What is the best way to do this?

I think that the best way to do this is for members to post motions
that they have worked hard to figure out, and for SLOBS to vote for
the initial idea to mark it as disagreed with specific reasons, so
that if it fails, it can be refined and a new motion posted - and this
can continue until the motion is posted or SLOBs categorically rejects
the motion.

Since there is a 7 day voting period for each motion, it is unlikely
that many motions will be posted in the same period that are
'competing' on the same topic - but even if there are, the best one
can be passed and then if an even better one is posted later, it can
be passed and overrule the earlier one.

>> 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.
>
> We may want to refine the process, as proposed by Sameer, and have someone
> moderate it. I would love to have a conversation about it during the next
> SLOBs meeting.

Me too - however I would like the conversation to happen _after_ all
pending motions have been voted on, as I proposed in my motion for a
new meeting schedule.

Also, I would like to see Sameer's proposal :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave