[IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 99, Issue 115

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 30 June 2016 at 12:52, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net> wrote:
> AFIK, it is true. Do you have any reference to show that the Sugar Labs
> Board has any different bylaws? I am new to the Board
> and so at some historical point, the normal rules of order could have been
> changed.
> ...
> I am new to the Board, but in most organizations they are specified in
> the bylaws (which I must confess I have never seen).

LOL!

I suggest you see the bylaws before you appeal to their authority :D

For myself, I have understood that the board serves and guides the
community, and as a member of the community, I have seen other
community members - like Caryl - submit motions.

I think is is a good idea for members to be able to pass motions to
the board to get feedback on them. Having posted several motions that
I think would improve the efficiency of the project, and been
completely ignored, and in fact asked to not post more motions by
Lionel, I understand the board does not want to hear from me. Very
well! :)

> In the absence, most organizations use Robert's Rules of Order.

A good reference, sure.

> The motion was not made by Sebastian, but by Walter. I think you need to
> re-read the log of the meeting. Non-members of the Board are welcome to
> propose actions by the Board, but Board members must take the action, if
> they so chose.

Indeed, having re-read Walter's emails for the 2 motions that passed
since I joined that were initially proposed by myself and Sebastian, I
see that Walter re-proposed them in his email.

> The vote by 'private thread' is not a Benghazi conspiracy theory. There is
> no one on the Board who is conspriing to keep secrets from the membership.
> I really think your persistence in accusing the Board of conspiracy is out
> of line.

I can only tell you again and again that I am not accusing the board
of conspiracy; I am stating the plain fact that the board does not
vote publicly. Do you contest this fact?

-- 
Cheers
Dave