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

[James Cameron]

G'day Laura,

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
  proposed it,

- 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
prevent decision-making.

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:
> 
> [1]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions
> 
> "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 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!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170508/524c50a9/attachment.sig>