[IAEP] [SLOBS] SL member list/joining criterion

[Adam Holt]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org
> wrote:

> Hello Friends, Sugar Labs members, Board,
>
> I would like to remind everyone of the past year's election process, as I
> recall, some context:
>
>     - There had been no Election in 2013 (for the 2014 board). There were
> three seats, and three candidates, so the board decided to promote the
> candidates to board members.
>     - There was no election in 2014 (for the 2015 board). As of March,
> there were two candidates, and three seats, and no election comittee. Laura
> volunteered to be a third candidate, and asked for elections to be held.
> She was told by Walter that new candidates would be solicited for December
> [1].
>     - With no membership committee to reply for membership requests or
> hold election (and some vocal critics), I stepped forward and went thru a
> long process to be appointed delegate for Election Committee, described in
> our Governance wiki page. The board decided to also appoint Caryl and
> Samson ("for diversity").
>     - The caduced board members from 2014 were allowed to remain board
> members in 2015.
>     - I set up a virtual machine with Lime Survey and uploaded the members
> list to it (the one at [2] and also at [3], which is the same document).
>     - The google docs list which we took over from Luke and that Walter,
> Samson, Caryl, Bernie, Luke and I have write access, is still regarded as
> the most up to date list of inactive+active members.
>     - I designed a very simple yes/no survey and sent it over to each
> member.
>     - As of Dec 15th 79 people replied to it (more than had voted in the
> past elections of 2012). The list is at [4].
>     - While Caryl says she got complaints, she and Samson can review their
> emails, there was no email to members at sugarlabs with complaints of no
> survey.
>     - I wanted to use the same survey system to vote, but refused to
> implement condorcet counting myself, proposing to the election committee to
> use range voting instead. The committee (Caryl and Samson) decided to
> instead use the same voting mechanism as was used in 2012 [5].
>     - Caryl then took over the election process using CIVS system (I did
> not participate further in this).
>     - Results [6] were publised to the list and sent to every voting
> member [7].
>
> In my mind, the list at [4] is the more current list, but the committee
> has continued to use the list at [2][3]. We could do another survey and see
> if more dormant members wake up.
>
> [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2015-March/017275.html
> [2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List
> [3]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit?usp=sharing_eid
> [4] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/Survey2015
> [5] http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/
> [6] http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_dd38dc6aa11d1a98
> [7] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-February/017686.html
>
> Now to your specific questions:
>
> On May 14, 2016 10:26 PM, "Walter Bender" < <walter.bender at gmail.com>
> walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > what is the harm in keeping them on the list? (Our membership list has
>>>>> never been well-correlated with the active contributors in any case.)
>>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Dave Crossland < <dave at lab6.com>
> dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
> The harm is two fold. Initially that the list says it is a list of active
>>>>> contributors, so having it not be that is problematic because it is
>>>>> confusing: we either ought to redefine it accurately, or prune it. On a
>>>>> deeper level it means referenda are a mirage, since it is impossible to get
>>>>> replies from people completely disengaged, and it means that SL appears to
>>>>> be a large and complex entity when it is not.
>>>>>
>>>> Walter asked the same question in a board meeting in 2015 and I
> responded the same as Dave did. Active members are important because they
> can propose and hold referenda. Perhaps we should practice this once. Not
> to be taken lightly, they can also remove board members.
>
> El 14/05/16 a las 23:04, Adam Holt escribió:
>>>>
>>> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org>
> <holt at laptop.org> wrote:
> >
> >     In any case, with about 4 months having have passed since January's
> election, can the Sugar Labs' legal board of directors please now get
> access to the verified-current-membership list of eligible voters that was
> used in this election, that Samson Goddy indicates is at
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit
> ?
>
> Samson is wrong, the list at [4] was used, with some people added manually
> by Caryl, but not listed there. Caryl could you please either update that
> list or share a list of people who got a ballot in last election?
>
> Adam, you keep referring to a private list, but there isn't one. There is
> no personal information for past members except their emails.
>

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit
is a private list, leaving others guessing what is being tabulated about
them, and by whom (I've been on SL's Oversight Board for almost 7 years,
and am still trying to find out).

Luke Faraone indicates he will try to provide me access.  If this
spreadsheet is the source of the 2 columns extract that appears at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List (minus the emails etc,
as you seem to indicate) it would be great to confirm that indeed.

(Profound thanks Sebastian for very comprehensively shedding light on this
complex situation as you've just done, and your hard work with Caryl &
Sebastian in 2015/2016 to make the election happen -- as we know from
national elections in Haiti/Nigeria/USA, getting a list of valid voters is
in fact a VERY hard technosocial problem, even After policies around
eligible voters have been established!)

>     FWIW / for the record
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members#Currency_assurance_policy
> currently states "The most recent currency review was in January 2016" and
> "once a year members will be asked to confirm that they still wish to be a
> Sugar Labs Member. If this request bounces, or if a request has not been
> replied to after it has been a) resent, b) checked for a more current email
> address, and c) six months have passed, the member will be sent a removal
> notice with an invitation to reapply."
> >
>
> That currency policy is the reason a survey was sent in the first place.
> However, it was sent in October, not six months before the election.
>
> El 14/05/16 a las 21:22, Caryl Bigenho escribió:
> >
> > Sebastian had done a lot of work on the list, sending out a survey via
> Lime Survey to determine who wanted to remain on the list.  There was just
> one problem… several long time contributors did not, for some reason,
> reply. They said they did not receive the survey (went to Spam?). Sebastian
> assumed that no reply meant they no longer wanted to be members. For many,
> this was not the case.
>
> They should've mailed members at sugarlabs.org - Walter, Bernie, Caryl,
> Samson and I get email from this alias.
>
> 11/05/16 a las 14:44, Adam Holt escribió:
> >
> > Caryl, Sebastian, Samson & All,
> >
> > 1) Can you provide all a link to a current (or post-election) SL
> membership list, verified to be reasonably current?
>
> The most up to date that I have access to is [4]. Caryl should have what
> was actually used in CIVS. I found notable that some slobs and candidates
> did not reply to the survey, but Caryl took their candidacy as affirmation
> of membership.
>
> >
> > 2) How many active and nonactive/lapsed members does SL have exactly,
> and what info do we retain on each, in case they choose to donate/rejoin
> etc?
>
> Many questions in one. Active members as per prior question. Non-active =
> List at [2] minus (members at [4] minus new members in 2016 minus the
> people that Caryl might've manually added to vote).
>
> I did not find the question but I think it was asked what the criterion is
> to accept members. Pretty much only that they send a short explanation of
> their reason to join (as even users are happily accepted). Never has anyone
> been rejected, during our delegacy, or, to my knowledge, before.
>
> Non active / lapsed members would be of course welcome to become elegible
> to vote again. Their lapsed / removed status has not been affirmed by
> removal emails, so they in effect have become de-facto non-voting members,
> not exactly non-members because of this missing last step.
>
> I hope to have answered to your satisfaction the current status of Sugar
> Labs membership committee.
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160515/efb13f10/attachment-0001.html>