[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net> wrote:
> You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion
> (email or otherwise)

This is simply, factually, false.

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16429.html
Walter reports the outcome of the vote, but it is impossible for
members to verify this.

I am not accusing Walter of the board of acting in bad faith. I am
simply stating facts, and posting motions to avoid procedural
mistakes.

When the board is voting on financial matters, procedural mistakes
become more serious, so I am eager to resolve the cause of the
problems _now_ before they are a problem _later._

> I am certainly not aware of any motion
> made by a member of the Board which has not been handled entirely in public.

Here is another recent motion which is reportedly passed but I can not
verify the votes.

The motion posted by Walter Bender which you can see here,

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html

and

http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16405.html

The text of the motion is:

    Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses
    incurred representing Sugar Labs at the Traducción
    e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú
    meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
that you say you are aware of.

>> Since you are on the SLOB list I am not surprised, but since I am not, how
>> can I know?
>
> The meetings of the Board are public. Yes, I am on the SLOBs list, and I can
> assure you there is nothing secret happening there. Your continued
> assertions that Board members are somehow deliberately acting behind the
> backs of SL members is not helpful.

I am not accusing anyone of acting behind anyone's backs. As you know
I have engaged the SLOBs list privately over legally sensitive
trademark matters, which I hope demonstrates that I understand and
agree with the need for a private board discussion forum.

What I am frustrated about is the board voting privately, and I see
room to improve board procedures since there is a chance of
potentially voting privately which I think ought to be formally
avoided.

I don't mean to be making accusations, rather sincerely stating the
facts as I see them. It's a fact, widely acknowledged, that the board
_can_ vote on public motions privately. I hope this will be rectified.

The reason I am feeling frustration is that Adam, a board member,
asked me to administer the board's record of decisions on the wiki,
and my effort to do so has been fettered: reports of motion outcomes
are reported by the chair - Walter - but I could not verify those
votes in the public mail archive.

Therefore I have offered a respectful motion to improve the
functioning of the organization by requiring votes on public motions
to be cross posted to the public mailing list and the private one in
order to be valid.

I am not sure why anyone opposes that motion, and why it was not
seconded and approved.

Responding to the overall situation of the board not acting promptly,
I have posted motions that I wish to see the board adopt to order the
monthly meeting in a productive way.

Like Laura, I feel hurt because, like everyone, I have a need to be
heard and acknowledged, and she and I have contributed to the
improvement of the board but our need has not been met. I also think
that Caryl's motions have also not been given much support from each
board member to help the motions reach a version that can pass.

> Your assertion that Board members
> are not acting promptly and decisively is not supported by the record and is
> also not helpful.

I have explained exactly and precisely to you how the board members
have not acted promptly and decisively.

I've also asked in other threads for the board to each post your
thoughts about each motion that has been posted by members that have
not been publicly commented on, earlier this week.

I do not know what else I can do to make this completely clear to you.

-- 
Cheers
Dave