[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [wiki bug] Roadmap Sugar Labs - Ambiguity detected on how to make Decisions
quozl at laptop.org
Sun May 7 22:59:57 EDT 2017
No, I don't think your suggestion is the best fix. It can and should
be much simpler.
Words spoken (or typed) during a meeting do not become a motion until
there exists both a proposer and seconder from among the members of
the oversight board.
You should instead welcome non-member proposals at the time of a
meeting; but require both a proposer and seconder from among the
members of the board.
The board should never prevent itself from talking about something.
A meeting chairperson has the duty to remind those in the meeting
what the rules are. Where there is no chairperson, all members of the
board have that duty.
What I see most of all is poor form of meeting procedure; which in
other parliaments is handled by;
- the chair making it clear when a motion is proposed, and who
- the chair making it clear when a motion is seconded,
- not allowing talk on a motion until it is seconded,
- not allowing a change to the motion unless the change is both
proposed and seconded,
- initiation, education and preparation of the board members.
These form the rules of order.
But I do not think these rules are appropriate for your board; they
are intended for environments where conflict is used to delay and
The members of the board have "a major problem with conflict
resolution and consensus building," (sverma) and adding rules won't
fix this. On the contrary, adding rules creates more conflict; a
weapon of procedure.
Please instead build trust.
Disclosure: I'm not a member of the board, and I'm not a member of
Sugar Labs. I'm a third-party with a commercial interest in the
success of Sugar.
On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 08:29:15AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> Hola a todos!
> During yesterday's meeting there was evident confusion among members regarding
> Sugar Labs decision-making process. Specifically, we had not clear if non-SLOBs
> members were welcome or not to propose motions during a meeting.
> I propose to correct the third sentence of the Decisions description on our
> wiki page it says:
> "Due to confusion about Sugar Labs governance, during 2016 several members of
> the project not on the SLOB posted motions, but these were not seconded, and
> have been struck out to show they were considered by some SLOB members are
> I suggest Option A to reduce to zero the ambiguity:
> Option A:
> "Sugar Labs governance model encourages members of the project not on the SLOB
> to post motions by email sending the proposed text to SLOBs, Sugar-devel, Sugar
> Sur and IAEP mailing lists."
> Additional options to modify the text from SLOBs and non SLOBs members highly
> appreciated; lets make an effort to make it cristal clear.
> Best regards and blessings from the largest forest ;D
> Laura V.
> I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ Laura Victoria
> Happy Learning!
>  https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the IAEP