<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> El 09/05/11 11:00, Mel Chua escribió: <blockquote cite="mid:4DC80FB0.7020804@melchua.com" type="cite">Thanks for taking notes on the SLOBs meeting in-person, folks! <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2011-05-08T19:25:35.html">http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2011-05-08T19:25:35.html</a> MOTION: A slob (to start with, Bernie) is authorized to approve spending tickets filed on the bugtracker up to $200. For amounts larger than this, we still need a full SLOBs motion. +1 from me, making this a +7 SLOBs unanimous vote. (Please keep reporting the under-$200 spends to iaep, please, for transparency!) </blockquote> <blockquote cite="mid:4DC80FB0.7020804@melchua.com" type="cite"> MOTION: We will have a Non-binding referendum of the community regarding whether Sugar Labs should recommend distributing Sugar modules under the GPLv3 or later (instead of the previous GPLv2 or later), with individual developers being responsible for deciding whether to update the license of the modules that they maintain. +1 from me, making this a +6 SLOBs vote (icarito absent from the room) </blockquote> +1 <blockquote cite="mid:4DC80FB0.7020804@melchua.com" type="cite"> MOTION: Patch for our Governance page to bring it in line with what we're actually doing: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fpaste.org/JfrD/">http://fpaste.org/JfrD/</a> +1 from me, making this a +6 SLOBs vote (icarito absent from the room) </blockquote> Reading the change in <a href="http://fpaste.org/JfrD/">http://fpaste.org/JfrD/ </a>and looking at <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance</a> shows two different things. The published Governance reads like we are giving the board some power over governance of Teams, Projects and Local Labs: "The Oversight Board is responsible for appointing officers with executive functions. (...) Existing officers include: (...) Team Coordinators Project Managers Coordinators of Local Labs <<----" My comment is that instead, the board should solicit the group the appointment of a liaison or contact person. Talking with Walter and Bernie I understand that this was actually the intention, so the exact wording has changed. Please refer to <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance#Officers_and_coordinators">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance#Officers_and_coordinators</a> to read the final wording and check. On a separate note, the word "official", when directly translated to spanish, has a military connotation so I suggested to call this person a "delegate" instead. Under the current version, this gets my +1 with the door open to fix the wording. Sebastian <a href="http://fpaste.org/JfrD/"></a> <blockquote cite="mid:4DC80FB0.7020804@melchua.com" type="cite"> --Mel _______________________________________________ SLOBs mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SLOBs@lists.sugarlabs.org">SLOBs@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs</a> </blockquote> </body> </html>