[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [wiki bug] Roadmap Sugar Labs - Ambiguity detected on how to make Decisions
laura at somosazucar.org
Thu May 11 11:07:00 EDT 2017
2017-05-10 17:27 GMT-05:00 James Cameron <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."
> This text was from Dave Crossland just after agreed motion 2016-42,
> and was in support of his other edits at the same time that changed
> several recorded "failed motions" into "member motions" with
> Agreed motion 2016-42 says "While suggestions for motions can come
> from anyone in the community, motions should be made by Sugar Labs
> oversight board members." and was made at the 2016-07-01 meeting.
> Changes made by Dave on this date help to show that the motions were
> not failed, but rather they were not proposed by any board member.
> I agree this paragraph can be removed; if some explanation of "struck
> out" is added instead. Which your suggested text below does not do.
> > 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
> > The meeting chairperson has the duty to making it clear when a
> > motion is proposed, and who proposed it, 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."
> I don't think this is necessary, and is an imposition on the chair.
Ok. I didn't included it.
> It is also the wrong place to define meeting practices; this page is
> a list of decisions.
> > I hope this sounds reasonable.
> No, it doesn't sound reasonable.
> On the one hand, I'll presume there have been private discussions that
> I'm not a party to, so the following should be taken in light of that.
> 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
> 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.
> As you know, there is ambiguity about definition of "motion",
> "suggestion", and "proposal".
> Yet again, nobody responded to clarify this ambiguity.
> While I could go into a blow-by-blow account of the meeting, it would
> be ineffective.
> Editing the Wiki as you have suggested will be equally ineffective;
> because as far as I can see the people who were at the meeting had not
> read the Wiki and had insufficient knowledge of previous decisions and
> As D. Joe recently reminded us when describing "consent agenda", there
> are steps in any meeting procedure that reveal bad faith, but we
> should hope and assume that the board members are acting in good
> faith; so what we have left is inadequate preparation and knowledge of
> Another reason for not using the Wiki for this; many of those at the
> meeting are not active Wiki participants; no recent edits or
> 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.
> 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.
You are right, there is a mistake on the numbering. I temporarily corrected
by naming the other motion 42B.
I wished I had more time to help Sugar Labs achieve clarity on its
> James Cameron
* I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*
“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ Laura Victoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel