[IAEP] Motion to Change The Sugar Labs Rules of Governance

[Samuel Greenfeld]

If the election cycle is starting tomorrow, then I agree there's no real
need for a recall vote, provided the person(s) in question are up for
re-election this year {positions are staggered}.

Personally I don't know what's going on here.

If someone truly believes a recall vote is in order, then they should be
trying to gathering members to propose the recall vote unless that goal is
essentially unattainable.  Admittedly, how this is supposed to be done is
vague.  At first glance recalls may fall under "Sugar Labs Referenda",
needing 10% of the membership to agree before the Membership and Elections
Committee formally takes it in.

That said I'd like to see Membership & Board quorums {and majority votes
within} formally defined -- while board meetings mention them in chat logs
and base yes/no decisions on a majority within, I don't think Sugar Labs'
Rules of Governance ever uses the word.





On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:37 PM, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 02:07:04AM +0000, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
> > [...] Motion to be voted on by the SLOB members:
> >
> > These lines in the Sugar Labs Rules of Governance shall be changed
> > wherever they occur from:
> >
> > "The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position
> > at any time by a majority vote of the Community Members" to
> >
> > "The members of the Oversight Board may be removed from the position
> > at any time by a majority vote of the Sugar Labs Oversight Board."
>
> Why should members give up this right?
>
> Instead, you might seek to add the right to the board.
>
> Your next step is to achieve a seconding of the motion, and organise a
> formal vote of the membership.  May I suggest the Membership and
> Elections Committee.
>
> > Recently the SLOB has become extremely dysfunctional. [...]
>
> I'm not so sure.  What I see is lack of time, very brief responses,
> failure of communication, unshared expectations, ... which in time
> will result in more robust and public debate of the issues.  Also,
> some of the board are being quite busy and enthusiastic, which is a
> wonderful thing to see.
>
> Members of Sugar Labs elected the oversight board members, and another
> election is coming up; the timetable is published.  Election
> would be the perfect time for members to choose who to remove; by
> electing the people it wants.
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Elections_2017
>
> @Samuel, do you think this timetable adequate?  ;-)
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.netrek.org/
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170814/c998209a/attachment.html>