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

[James Cameron]

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:07:00AM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> 2017-05-10 17:27 GMT-05:00 James Cameron <[1]quozl en 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.

>     > 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.

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
languages.

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_Minutes-2016-07-01
>     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
http://quozl.netrek.org/