[Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [wiki bug] Roadmap Sugar Labs - Ambiguity detected on how to make Decisions
walter.bender at gmail.com
Thu May 11 18:39:30 EDT 2017
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 <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
> 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_
> > 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.
> James Cameron
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel