<div dir="ltr">On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Sebastian Silva <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sebastian@fuentelibre.org" target="_blank">sebastian@fuentelibre.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Friends, Sugar Labs members, Board,<br>
<br>
I would like to remind everyone of the past year's election process,
as I recall, some context:<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
- 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].<br>
- 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").<br>
- The caduced board members from 2014 were allowed to remain
board members in 2015.<br>
- 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).<br>
- 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.<br>
- I designed a very simple yes/no survey and sent it over to
each member.<br>
- As of Dec 15th 79 people replied to it (more than had voted in
the past elections of 2012). The list is at [4].<br>
- While Caryl says she got complaints, she and Samson can review
their emails, there was no email to members@sugarlabs with
complaints of no survey.<br>
- 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].<br>
- Caryl then took over the election process using CIVS system (I
did not participate further in this).<br>
- Results [6] were publised to the list and sent to every voting
member [7].<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2015-March/017275.html" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2015-March/017275.html</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List</a><br>
[3]
<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit?usp=sharing_eid" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit?usp=sharing_eid</a><br>
[4] <a href="https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/Survey2015" target="_blank">https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/Survey2015</a><br>
[5] <a href="http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/</a><br>
[6]
<a href="http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_dd38dc6aa11d1a98" target="_blank">http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_dd38dc6aa11d1a98</a><br>
[7]
<a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-February/017686.html" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-February/017686.html</a><br>
<br>
Now to your specific questions:<span class=""><br>
<br>
On May 14, 2016 10:26 PM, "Walter Bender" <<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com" target="_blank">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><span>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>
<p dir="ltr">
> 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.)</p>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Dave Crossland <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@lab6.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dave@lab6.com" target="_blank">dave@lab6.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><span>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>
</span>
<p dir="ltr">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.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><span>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">El 14/05/16
a las 23:04, Adam Holt escribió:<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote><span class="">
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Adam Holt
<a href="mailto:holt@laptop.org" target="_blank"><holt@laptop.org></a> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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
<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit</a>
?<br>
<br></span>
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?<br>
<br>
Adam, you keep referring to a private list, but there isn't one.
There is no personal information for past members except their
emails.<span class=""><br></span></div></blockquote><div><br><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit</a> 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).<br><br>Luke Faraone indicates he will try to provide me access. If this spreadsheet is the source of the 2 columns extract that appears at <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List</a> (minus the emails etc, as you seem to indicate) it would be great to confirm that indeed.<br><br>(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!)<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">> FWIW / for the record
<a href="https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members#Currency_assurance_policy" target="_blank">https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members#Currency_assurance_policy</a>
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."<br>
><br>
<br></span>
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.<br>
<br>
El 14/05/16 a las 21:22, Caryl Bigenho escribió:<span class=""><br>
><br>
> 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. <br>
<br></span>
They should've mailed <a href="mailto:members@sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">members@sugarlabs.org</a> - Walter, Bernie, Caryl,
Samson and I get email from this alias.<br>
<br>
11/05/16 a las 14:44, Adam Holt escribió:<span class=""><br>
><br>
> Caryl, Sebastian, Samson & All,<br>
><br>
> 1) Can you provide all a link to a current (or post-election)
SL membership list, verified to be reasonably current?<br>
<br></span>
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.<span class=""><br>
<br>
><br>
> 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?<br>
<br></span>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I hope to have answered to your satisfaction the current status of
Sugar Labs membership committee.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ <a href="http://unleashkids.org" target="_blank">http://unleashkids.org</a> !</div></div>
</div></blockquote></div>
</div></div>