[IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [wiki bug] Roadmap Sugar Labs - Ambiguity detected on how to make Decisions

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:31 PM, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:07:00AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> > 2017-05-10 17:27 GMT-05:00 James Cameron <[1]quozl at laptop.org>:
> >
> >     On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:20:22AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> >     > Thank you both for your interest and suggestions.
> >     >
> >     > I will research on the "consent agenda mechanism". Hope other
> >     > board members will also research. Clearly we have much to
> >     > learn.
> >     >
> >     > In the meanwhile, and if there are no objections in a couple
> >     > of days, I will replace the text in the decisions page of the
> >     > wiki, from:
> >     >
> >     > "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 invalid."
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >     I agree this paragraph can be removed; if some explanation of
> >     "struck out" is added instead.  Which your suggested text below
> >     does not do.
>
> I've added back an explanation of the "struck out" text.
>

I did a bit of reformatting so that the only text that is struck out is the
MEMBER MOTION bits, leaving the actual proposal easier to read.

>
> >     > To
> >     >
> >     > "We welcome non-member proposals at the time of a meeting; but
> >     > they require both a proposer and seconder from among the
> >     > members of the board.
> >
> >     I disagree with the wording.  Instead, use the text of agreed
> >     motion 2016-42.
> >
> > Done.
>
> Couldn't see that done.  I've added the text of the motion at the
> start of the page.
>
> > [...]
> >     >From what I have seen, both in the minutes and the public mail
> >     lists, the chair is doing a reasonable job already, but the
> >     board members and visiting community don't have an appreciation
> >     of the procedure and the chair.
> >
> >     For instance, in the most recent meeting Caryl said "I believe
> >     any Sugar-Labs member can make a motion for consieration by the
> >     SLOB" and "Actually, all Sugar Labs members have been able to
> >     make motions. I have done it before as have others who were not
> >     members of SLOB".
> >
> > Caryl's behavior has been contradictory. Not only she attended the
> > meeting where motion 2016-42 was approved, but she also sponsored
> > the decision:
> >
> > "GrannieB2     <kaametza> just contact a SLOB member and get them to
> > present your motion"
> >
> >     As you know, the procedure had been changed and made clearer in
> >     agreed motion 2016-42.
> >
> >     Yet nobody responded to Caryl to say that the procedure had
> >     changed.
> >
> > I don't understand why. The motion about motions was presented by
> > Walter and it had 7 votes on favor so it was supposed to be clear.
>
> Board members are jointly and severally responsible for their actions;
> that means they are responsible as a whole and individually.
>
> Your saying it was supposed to be clear is an admission of that
> responsibility, and makes me and other onlookers think "in
> communicating their meeting procedure, the board members have not done
> as well as they could have done."  An opportunity to improve.
>

I am all for improving.

>
> Yes, it's on the Wiki, but few people are engaged in the Wiki.
>
> Yes, it was in a previous meeting, but almost a year ago.
>
> Let's assume good faith and take a charitable view, and reinterpret;
> Caryl was mixing terms (motion, suggestion, proposal); and your
> interpretation may have been challenged by your experience with other
> languages.
>
> For instance, "I believe any Sugar-Labs member can make a motion for
> consieration by the SLOB" should have been interpreted as "suggestion
> for a motion", ... the key to that interpretation is the word
> consideration, by which Caryl says the board is still responsible for
> the motion.
>
> and "Actually, all Sugar Labs members have been able to make
> motions. I have done it before as have others who were not members of
> SLOB" should also have been interpreted as "suggestion for a motion".
>
> So this is a miscommunication, and it was not handled well at the time
> of the meeting.
>
> >     As you know, there is ambiguity about definition of "motion",
> >     "suggestion", and "proposal".
> >
> >     Yet again, nobody responded to clarify this ambiguity.
> >
> >     [...]
> >
> >     p.s. in my opinion, agreed motion 2016-42 might have used "must"
> >     instead of "should".  As it stands, there is a tiny bit of ambiguity.
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> >
> >     --
> >
> >     p.p.s. agreed motion 2016-42 is listed in the minutes of the
> >     2016-07-01 meeting but not in the decisions; a different motion is
> >     listed instead.
> >
> >     https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_
> Minutes-2016-07-01
> >     https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2016-07-01
> >
> > You are right, there is a mistake on the numbering. I temporarily
> > corrected by naming the other motion 42B.
>
> Agreed.  I've made the change also in the minutes.  That I changed it
> will be in the page history.  I've also checked for other references
> by searching for '"2016-42"' and there are none.
>
> > I wished I had more time to help Sugar Labs achieve clarity on its
> > procedures.
>
> Again, the procedures are not the core of the problem; it is awareness
> and time, both of which are difficult enough in a community of
> volunteers.  Both can be improved by more communication, and real
> changes in Sugar; which the GsoC coming up should help with.  But
> communication is the key.
>

+1

>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.netrek.org/
> _______________________________________________
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170511/bbce4dda/attachment.html>