Time |
Nick |
Message |
10:00 |
walterbender |
welcome everyone |
10:01 |
|
we have a fairly simple goal today: to decide on a decision making process |
10:01 |
|
Mel and Tomeu have done most of the work for us. |
10:01 |
mchua |
Is everybody here? |
10:02 |
|
#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]ng_Log-2009-10-30 |
10:02 |
|
(agenda) |
10:02 |
walterbender |
I think so... at least logged in |
10:02 |
mchua |
#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_a_SLOBs_decision |
10:02 |
|
(decision making process proposal) |
10:02 |
walterbender |
#topic decision-making procedure |
10:03 |
|
mchua and tomeu: do you want to summarize (again) your work |
10:03 |
mchua |
Sure. We generated a list of options for How SLOBs Makes What Decisions |
10:03 |
walterbender |
there was a nice gist by Tomeu in email this morning |
10:04 |
mchua |
can haz mail archive link? |
10:04 |
|
for posterity |
10:04 |
|
looks too |
10:04 |
walterbender |
while Mel is looking, let me remind everyone of what we had been doing to date: |
10:04 |
mchua |
I think this is it: |
10:04 |
|
#link http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]tober/009175.html |
10:05 |
walterbender |
majority vote with a majority of members present |
10:05 |
SeanDaly_ |
grumbles about flaky 3G |
10:06 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: http://pastebin.be/21644 |
10:06 |
walterbender |
mchua, tomeu: do you have a specific recommendation we can discuss and vote on? |
10:07 |
tomeu |
walterbender: well, if we answer the questions I added to the wiki, we'll be close to that |
10:07 |
mchua |
Yes, I think the game plan was to step through http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_a_SLOBs_decision and just get those options chosen real quick. |
10:07 |
|
tomeu + 1 |
10:07 |
|
looks for appropriate sections of wiki page |
10:07 |
walterbender |
let's do it then... |
10:07 |
tomeu |
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_decision_is_made |
10:07 |
mchua |
#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_decision_is_made |
10:07 |
|
that's essentially Tomeu's questions in "let's choose quickly" form, and imo the most important thing we need to set today. |
10:08 |
walterbender |
#topic voting medium |
10:08 |
mchua |
tomeu: wanna drive the voting/decision/discussion on this part? |
10:08 |
tomeu |
let's follow walter's #topics |
10:09 |
walterbender |
Since we post our logs, there is no difference in the media except immediacy |
10:09 |
|
or am I missing something? |
10:10 |
mchua |
I think we need to settle on one medium as the canonical record, but that's all |
10:10 |
|
like if someone posts to the mailing list their vote, and a different one on the wiki, which one trumps. |
10:10 |
walterbender |
I'd prefer irc, because we can move quickly, as long as we keep records, which we do |
10:10 |
tomeu |
walterbender: maybe tamperability, but I personally don't find it important enough, given that this channel is public |
10:10 |
mchua |
(admittedly, edge case.) |
10:10 |
|
yeah, that too. |
10:10 |
CanoeBerry |
And if we accept email votes, a clear deadline as to when that vote must be submitted. |
10:10 |
mchua |
Basically, I just want One Place to look to find the voting record, and I don't care where that place is. |
10:11 |
|
+1 deadlines |
10:11 |
walterbender |
we are slipping into the next topic. |
10:11 |
mchua |
Sorry. |
10:11 |
walterbender |
but the point of letting someone who knows they cannot attend vote by proxy or email I support |
10:11 |
mchua |
I propose the wiki as the final record, pulling from mailing lists and IRC channels as needed, but being The One Place we know things are going to be posted/accurate. |
10:12 |
walterbender |
e.g. SeanDaly :) |
10:12 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: http://pastebin.be/21645 |
10:12 |
walterbender |
mchua: wiki is a good place to post the results |
10:12 |
SeanDaly__ |
thanks for that tomeu grreatly appreciated |
10:12 |
tomeu |
yw ;) |
10:13 |
walterbender |
so far, we are converging on irc as the primary medium with email for absentee ballots and the wiki as the archive of record? |
10:13 |
mchua |
if that's a motion, I second it |
10:13 |
CanoeBerry |
+1 |
10:13 |
tomeu |
I agree with that |
10:13 |
walterbender |
OK. then, let's put it to a vote. |
10:13 |
|
yea |
10:13 |
mchua |
bernie, cjb: ^^ |
10:13 |
|
yea |
10:14 |
tomeu |
I vote yes |
10:14 |
SeanDaly__ |
yea |
10:15 |
tomeu |
ok, how can we get the 2 missing votes? |
10:15 |
walterbender |
realizes we have a chicken/egg problem |
10:15 |
CanoeBerry |
Telephone them? |
10:15 |
|
I'm stuck in a meeting, otherwise I would.. |
10:15 |
walterbender |
I'll try calling bernie |
10:16 |
mchua |
...do we need them? If we set the week timeout afterwards, and a timeout with no pass for the rest, we could dogfood our future procedures now-ish-like |
10:16 |
|
er, I mean, if we... agh, I think you folks know what I mean. If we set a procedure that is not incompatible with having two people not on IRC right now, we can still move forward. |
10:16 |
walterbender |
agrees. We can ratify this with consensus after the fact |
10:16 |
|
tried calling bernie--his mailbox is full |
10:17 |
SeanDaly__ |
prefers terms "catfood" or "birdseed" |
10:17 |
tomeu |
edmcnierney: is cjb around you? |
10:17 |
|
or I guess we can get their votes later by email? |
10:17 |
walterbender |
#action get final sign off from bernie and cjb on today's actions. |
10:17 |
tomeu |
or in this meeting later? |
10:17 |
|
sounds good |
10:17 |
mchua |
Good stuff. |
10:17 |
edmcnierney |
tomeu: Hi! No, but I'm working at home and would be surprised to find cjb here ;-) |
10:17 |
walterbender |
so can we go to the next topic? |
10:17 |
tomeu |
heh |
10:18 |
mchua |
#info tentative - IRC as primary medium with email for absentee ballots and wiki as archive as record |
10:18 |
walterbender |
#voting timeline |
10:18 |
|
#topic voting timeline |
10:18 |
mchua |
yayy! Ok, we have 3 options here, with variants. |
10:18 |
|
1. immediate in-meeting |
10:18 |
|
2. # |
10:18 |
|
1. |
10:18 |
|
# voting window opens one week before meeting, closes in meeting |
10:18 |
|
argh, hate wiki copypaste |
10:18 |
|
3. voting window opens at meeting, closes one week after meeting |
10:19 |
CanoeBerry |
I like #3 but feel 1 week is too long. |
10:19 |
|
As it bleeds into the next week's meeting. |
10:19 |
mchua |
ooh, good point. |
10:19 |
|
how about "opens at meeting, closes 48h after meeting end"? |
10:19 |
walterbender |
it seems that 2 and 3 are the same... in that we use meetings to decide what to vote on |
10:19 |
cjb |
hi all |
10:19 |
walterbender |
hi cjb |
10:19 |
SeanDaly__ |
hmmm some matters may be important & urgent needing quick votes; however most important decisions it would be good to have review period before vote |
10:19 |
CanoeBerry |
72hrs or 96hrs to accomodate the wkd? |
10:20 |
walterbender |
cjb: could you read the backlog and cast a vote? |
10:20 |
SeanDaly__ |
greets cjb |
10:20 |
mchua |
cjb: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0091030_1000.html start at 10:13:14 |
10:20 |
cjb |
sure |
10:20 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: agreed. so maybe we keep two tools in our toolchest? |
10:21 |
SeanDaly__ |
walterbender: yes |
10:21 |
mchua |
how do we decide what gets what timeout period? |
10:21 |
cjb |
sounds good to me, +1 |
10:21 |
walterbender |
cjb: thanks |
10:21 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: ok, I like the two speeds |
10:21 |
walterbender |
mchua: it is the same question re levels of agreement. |
10:21 |
SeanDaly__ |
mchua: perhaps higher bar for immediate vote? unanimous or almost? |
10:22 |
CanoeBerry |
aside: can we change our votes over email during the followon 72-or-96-or-whatever-hours time period? |
10:22 |
SeanDaly__ |
failed immediate vote could still pass review period 2nd vote |
10:22 |
walterbender |
we can always revisit decisions |
10:23 |
mchua |
CanoeBerry: I'd be good with that, if the person announced over email and changed on wiki for archive as record. |
10:23 |
|
er, archive of record |
10:23 |
SeanDaly__ |
CanoeBerry: votes do need a finality... we can always annul decisions if enough votes |
10:23 |
walterbender |
no matter what the voting mechanism or timeline... |
10:23 |
mchua |
...oh, good point. |
10:23 |
|
changes mind, no changing votes. |
10:23 |
CanoeBerry |
seems smart. |
10:23 |
tomeu |
we aren't a parliament, so maybe we don't need to make things very complicated |
10:24 |
mchua |
You can always tentatively say "I think I'll vote this way" and then do the final vote during the however-many-hours timeperiod |
10:24 |
|
I would propose 96h to get a non-weekend day in for everyone |
10:24 |
walterbender |
is there a motion in the works? |
10:24 |
SeanDaly__ |
tomeu: agreed, but if rules are clear, we can get a lot of work done |
10:24 |
tomeu |
if we have close sister organizations, we can ask someone there to give their opinions on the scheme we approve initially |
10:24 |
|
so we benefit from their experience |
10:24 |
mchua |
nods |
10:24 |
tomeu |
but this shouldn't delay getting a first agreement |
10:24 |
mchua |
walterbender: I think so, I'm queuing a motion up right now |
10:25 |
CanoeBerry |
would that be 96hrs from end of meeting? |
10:25 |
SeanDaly__ |
tomeu: there is a rich history of committee management theory :-) |
10:25 |
mchua |
motion: voting window starts at meeting, closes 96h from end of meeting |
10:25 |
|
(If we want a second voting window / level of meeting, we can specify this as "voting type 1" later in another motion) |
10:26 |
CanoeBerry |
+1 |
10:26 |
cjb |
+1 |
10:26 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry seconds the motion |
10:26 |
mchua |
aye |
10:26 |
SeanDaly__ |
yea |
10:26 |
tomeu |
+1 |
10:26 |
walterbender |
any further discussion before the vote? I guess not :) |
10:26 |
|
votes yes |
10:26 |
mchua |
laughs |
10:26 |
tomeu |
we can always revote it :p |
10:26 |
mchua |
is that decided then? do we need to put in that second timeline, that second type of vote? |
10:26 |
walterbender |
great. next topic ... |
10:27 |
CanoeBerry |
#action bernie vote on 96hrs deadline for follow-on email votes |
10:27 |
mchua |
#info voting window starts at meeting, closes 96h from end of meeting |
10:27 |
walterbender |
#topic level of agreement |
10:27 |
SeanDaly__ |
vote lever stuck |
10:27 |
mchua |
"Should all decisions require the same level of agreement? Maybe changing the rules require a stronger agreement such as unanimity or a greater quorum?" |
10:27 |
walterbender |
missing the old voting booths, hanging chads and all |
10:28 |
SeanDaly__ |
saw news item about FLOSS voting system |
10:28 |
walterbender |
I worry about requiring unanimity fo rthe reasons SeanDaly__ discussed earlier |
10:28 |
mchua |
Personally, I think that right now, the answer is "yes." and if we come to a point where we need multiple levels of agreement, we can put it up for a proposal to amend later. |
10:28 |
SeanDaly__ |
for US elections |
10:28 |
mchua |
(er, yes to "require the same level of agreement for all decisions") |
10:29 |
walterbender |
I think that majority of a majority is not broken |
10:29 |
SeanDaly__ |
majority works since odd number of SLOBs |
10:29 |
mchua |
Majority of a majority = 3, which is a minority of SLOBs, unless I do my math wrong here |
10:29 |
CanoeBerry |
What about quorum? |
10:30 |
mchua |
I favor 4 yeas = yes, everything else = no |
10:30 |
tomeu |
hmm, but 3 vs 2 would be majority of a majority, would those 3 people be able to, for example, remove someone from the board? |
10:30 |
walterbender |
mchua: if we say four then we guarantee both a majority and a quorum |
10:30 |
mchua |
tomeu: yeah, that's the math I figured too |
10:30 |
SeanDaly__ |
my building's coop has been stymied for years due to incapacity to assemble quorum... |
10:30 |
mchua |
walterbender: I'd vote on that motion - majority + quorum = win |
10:31 |
walterbender |
we can usually get 4 of the 7 here... |
10:31 |
|
mchua: can you rephrase as a motion? |
10:32 |
mchua |
MOTION: 4 yeas = yes, everything else = no |
10:32 |
tomeu |
maybe changing governance rules require absolute majority? all the rest majority of majority? |
10:32 |
|
as a middle-point |
10:32 |
|
mchua: +1 |
10:32 |
CanoeBerry |
Email votes will help us reach eg. 4. |
10:32 |
tomeu |
I'm fine with that |
10:32 |
mchua |
tomeu: is that something we can add as an amendment later? |
10:32 |
tomeu |
yeah |
10:32 |
|
mchua: just a suggestion, I'm ok with your motion as-is |
10:33 |
mchua |
ok, we have a second, I guess discussion and then walterbender calls a vote? |
10:33 |
|
tomeu: yeah, I like that suggestion, but I want to get v.1.0 of decision-procedure package out the door before we add bonus patches :) |
10:33 |
SeanDaly__ |
finger on lever waiting for vote text |
10:33 |
mchua |
too |
10:33 |
walterbender |
any more discussion? |
10:33 |
|
let |
10:34 |
|
's vote |
10:34 |
CanoeBerry |
Clarification if possible. |
10:34 |
walterbender |
sure |
10:34 |
|
what is the question? |
10:35 |
|
CanoeBerry: ping |
10:35 |
mchua |
yea |
10:35 |
|
(while we're waiting) |
10:35 |
CanoeBerry |
Just the motion etc, if quorum is still relevant, and whether 1 person can run a meeting with all others voting later by email etc. |
10:35 |
SeanDaly |
wonders what I missed |
10:36 |
mchua |
Yeah, I'd say so, it says 4 votes, so as long as those votes are in by the timeout, sure |
10:36 |
|
SeanDaly: not much, will send log |
10:36 |
|
SeanDaly: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0091030_1000.html |
10:36 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: http://pastebin.be/21647 |
10:36 |
|
oh, cool |
10:36 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry: I get your point... hopefully a corner case. |
10:37 |
sdziallas |
jumps in, is late. |
10:37 |
SeanDaly |
thanks |
10:37 |
CanoeBerry |
Seems like a quorum of 2 or 3 might be smart. |
10:37 |
|
But I'm new here :) |
10:37 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry: to initiate a vote... I think four is good |
10:38 |
mchua |
Oh, sorry. Should I amend the motion to say 4 is quorum /and/ minimum vote? Two birds, one stone? |
10:38 |
SeanDaly |
the idea of a quorum is to avoid a vote getting sneaked past absent members |
10:38 |
walterbender |
Anyone second the amended motion? |
10:38 |
SeanDaly |
a problem when there are 2 factions |
10:38 |
mchua |
AMENDED: meeting quorum is 4 SLOBs, vote approval is 4 SLOBs yeas, everything else a no. |
10:39 |
|
(does that work?) |
10:39 |
tomeu |
fine with me |
10:39 |
walterbender |
works for me |
10:39 |
CanoeBerry |
Quorum of 4 live irc participants? |
10:39 |
mchua |
CanoeBerry: yeah. |
10:39 |
SeanDaly |
seconded |
10:39 |
walterbender |
discussion |
10:39 |
|
3 |
10:39 |
|
2 |
10:39 |
|
1 |
10:39 |
|
vote |
10:39 |
mchua |
yea |
10:39 |
walterbender |
yes |
10:39 |
mchua |
(I like the countdown!) |
10:39 |
SeanDaly |
yea |
10:39 |
tomeu |
yes |
10:40 |
cjb |
yea! |
10:40 |
CanoeBerry |
4 is a high bar to set for quorum -- can we sustain this every week? I'm in favor but jsut asking.. |
10:40 |
SeanDaly |
mchua: I end marketing meetings like auctions going once... twice |
10:40 |
mchua |
#info meeting quorum is 4 SLOBs, vote approval is 4 SLOBs yeas, everything else a no. |
10:40 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry: I think we can |
10:40 |
mchua |
(since I think we all said yes here) |
10:41 |
cjb |
bernie and I will have to learn how to get up earlier reliably :) |
10:41 |
mchua |
#action get bernie approval on quorum/voting |
10:41 |
|
grins |
10:41 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry: we don't need to meet every week, bt we have a backlog of work |
10:41 |
mchua |
If we have trouble with attendance we can always amend. |
10:41 |
SeanDaly |
CanoeBerry: I don't think bar is high; is much lower than unanimity |
10:41 |
mchua |
I think the key here is to go "we can amend, we can amend, it's better to have clear things we can amend" |
10:41 |
CanoeBerry |
Let's give it a shot. |
10:41 |
mchua |
rather than fuzzy things we aren't quite sure about. |
10:41 |
|
woo! |
10:41 |
walterbender |
we covered voting system as the same time as level of agreementr |
10:42 |
mchua |
nods |
10:42 |
|
There was one more note on tomeu's email |
10:42 |
|
to make sure stuff doesn't build up |
10:42 |
tomeu |
cjb: we can change time if people want |
10:42 |
mchua |
(or in the same section as tomeu's email, anyway) |
10:42 |
|
"the agenda is purged each week - it does not automatically roll over into the next week's agenda, that must be done explicitly and manually each time." |
10:42 |
|
or rephrasing, " 1. everything that isn't made into a motion is dropped from the agenda |
10:42 |
|
is that a motion we want to go for too? |
10:42 |
CanoeBerry |
2 weeks might be better. |
10:43 |
SeanDaly |
also, if several critical decisions, more than one meeting in a week is a possibility |
10:43 |
mchua |
True to both. Suggestions? |
10:43 |
walterbender |
I think we want to encourage action... which this proposal prompts |
10:43 |
mchua |
My criteria: old stuff doesn't build up in the queue. |
10:43 |
SeanDaly |
agree with start-from-scratch weekly agenda |
10:44 |
mchua |
how about "agenda items / proposals / etc time out 2 weeks after they are first posted"? |
10:44 |
SeanDaly |
some old stuff requires several weeks resolution; others are dropped because less urgent |
10:44 |
walterbender |
can do maintain a list of topics of interest,... |
10:44 |
CanoeBerry |
Can we also have something like agenda-setting late additions during the first 5 min of each meeting? |
10:44 |
SeanDaly |
yes a punch list useful |
10:44 |
mchua |
walterbender: already do to some extent on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]ht_Board/Meetings |
10:45 |
|
woefully out of date, that list |
10:45 |
|
which prompted that addition :) |
10:45 |
SeanDaly |
CanoeBerry: I like that idea, but best to add at end of meeting perhaps |
10:45 |
mchua |
CanoeBerry: I'd rather say topics should be announced before the meeting |
10:45 |
CanoeBerry |
I like encouraging ppl to arrive on time. |
10:46 |
mchua |
so last minute additions to the agenda on the wiki 1 minute before meeting start = cool, but once that time is locked, it's locked |
10:46 |
|
That way folks can't have a secret agenda item and then not tell anyone (so nobody shows up for the discussion) and then spring it in meeting |
10:46 |
CanoeBerry |
Live agenda discussion can be extremely useful at the beginning of each meeting. |
10:46 |
walterbender |
as an aside, it would be good to settle on one format/place for all of this in the wiki... |
10:46 |
|
CanoeBerry: I agree. We need some flexibility |
10:47 |
SeanDaly |
mchua: we shouldn't restrict ourselves too much... |
10:47 |
walterbender |
we have 12 minutes left... |
10:47 |
SeanDaly |
we are in fast-paced environment |
10:47 |
mchua |
reckons we can move that to an amendment |
10:47 |
walterbender |
mchua: we don't need to accept agenda additions |
10:48 |
|
but we can leave the door open to them |
10:48 |
mchua |
walterbender: since we're short on time, I think http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]sion_is_requested is the last key piece remaining |
10:48 |
|
the rest can be amendments |
10:48 |
|
we have a way of working through the queue, now we just need a way for things to get onto it |
10:49 |
SeanDaly |
topic triage in 4 categories: Important and Urgent, Urgent, Important, Routine |
10:49 |
cjb |
that sounds overly complicated, I think |
10:49 |
walterbender |
cjb: agreed |
10:50 |
|
everything we do is important :) |
10:50 |
|
it is just a matter of urgency |
10:50 |
mchua |
can we just assign the meeting chair to do topic triage for that meeting, for now |
10:50 |
|
and add amendments if needed later? |
10:50 |
|
(in terms of "what gets on the queue") |
10:50 |
walterbender |
sounds good. KISS |
10:50 |
mchua |
I'd rather focus on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]sion_is_requested with the "Decision requests should include" list |
10:50 |
|
to keep life simple for our triager |
10:51 |
tomeu |
is half here now |
10:51 |
mchua |
MOTION: meeting chair triages and has final say on topics to be decided on at meeting |
10:51 |
|
(just to get that out of the way, we can amend more later) |
10:51 |
walterbender |
mchua: I think any SLOBs member can put a topic into the agenda unilaterally |
10:51 |
|
I presume this is for community members |
10:52 |
mchua |
walterbender: Yep. Amended motion? |
10:52 |
|
...or wait, if any SLOBs member can put a topic |
10:52 |
|
then a community member can ask any SLOBs member. |
10:52 |
|
UNMOTION previous motion |
10:53 |
walterbender |
motion: slob members can unilaterally propose agenda items (to be handed off to the chair); community members can proposal agenda items to be triaged by the chair. |
10:53 |
mchua |
MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their motion up if they have one |
10:53 |
|
walterbender's phrasing is better |
10:53 |
CanoeBerry |
Who is the chair? |
10:53 |
mchua |
wait, chair != SLOBs |
10:53 |
|
jumping the gun on reading stuff again |
10:53 |
|
CanoeBerry: yeah, that's why I sidestepped that question with "any SLOB can..." |
10:54 |
cjb |
confused. what's this chair thing? |
10:54 |
mchua |
cjb: walterbender, right now |
10:54 |
walterbender |
is the ED, but has been acting as the chair as well |
10:54 |
mchua |
whoever generally presides over a meeting |
10:54 |
cjb |
always a SLOB, right? |
10:54 |
mchua |
cjb: yes |
10:54 |
walterbender |
cjb: yes |
10:54 |
cjb |
ok |
10:54 |
mchua |
reposts motion sans "chair" thing |
10:55 |
|
MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their motion up if they have one |
10:55 |
cjb |
yeah that one! |
10:55 |
CanoeBerry |
so the chair is whoever types "#startmeeting" or something like that? |
10:55 |
cjb |
I don't think the chair's necessary for this stuff |
10:55 |
mchua |
any seconds on that motion? |
10:55 |
cjb |
second |
10:55 |
mchua |
remember, we can always amend |
10:55 |
walterbender |
mchua: I am fine with your motion, but the requests should be triaged |
10:56 |
mchua |
walterbender: I think they can be triaged by SLOBs not putting stuff on the agenda, and if we run into a problem (which I reckon we shall soon) we have a procedure to amend |
10:56 |
walterbender |
revised motion proposal: |
10:56 |
mchua |
(amend and put the chair stuff in) |
10:56 |
walterbender |
MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their motion up if they have one that will be triaged by the SLOBs member |
10:57 |
mchua |
Basically, "the approval of a SLOB is needed to put an item on the agenda queue"? |
10:57 |
|
and if it doesn't come up in a meeting within two weeks of its posting, it expires? |
10:57 |
CanoeBerry |
Will community members get a public pre-queue to post suggestions? |
10:57 |
mchua |
CanoeBerry: If we do that, yes they should. |
10:57 |
|
notes we have 5m left |
10:58 |
|
notes that if we decide this question, v.1.0 of Decision Making will be done and almost shipped, pending bernie's +1 on all |
10:58 |
walterbender |
anyone second the motion? |
10:58 |
mchua |
everything else on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_a_SLOBs_decision can be proposed as an amendment, but "how to get stuff on queue" is a prerequisite to this working at all |
10:58 |
CanoeBerry |
Indeed, let's wrap up and circle around next week with appointed positions etc. |
10:58 |
mchua |
walterbender: I second it. |
10:58 |
walterbender |
discussion |
10:59 |
|
3 |
10:59 |
|
2 |
10:59 |
|
1 |
10:59 |
|
vote |
10:59 |
mchua |
yea |
10:59 |
walterbender |
yes |
10:59 |
cjb |
yea |
10:59 |
walterbender |
(we'll review for SeanDaly) |
11:00 |
CanoeBerry |
I don't fully understand the motion but vote yes anyway :) |
11:00 |
tomeu |
+1 |
11:00 |
walterbender |
OK |
11:00 |
|
I will follow up with Bernie and then post the minutes. |
11:00 |
SeanDaly__ |
arrrgh |
11:00 |
mchua |
#info MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the |
11:00 |
|
agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their |
11:01 |
walterbender |
Mel, can you take a stab at putting these rules into the wiki? |
11:01 |
mchua |
motion up if they have one that will be triaged by the |
11:01 |
|
SLOBs member |
11:01 |
|
walterbender: yes, but can't get to it until later tonight so if someone beats me to it, great |
11:01 |
|
action me! |
11:01 |
|
has to run |
11:01 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: we missed your vote :( |
11:01 |
|
we should wrap up. Glad to have this settled (pending Bernie's vote) |
11:02 |
CanoeBerry |
Thanks all for the great v1.0 rulemaking. |
11:02 |
walterbender |
#action get bernie's input |
11:02 |
|
#action get the rules written up in the wiki |
11:02 |
|
#action get the community informed |
11:02 |
|
#action put it all into action |
11:02 |
|
#action rock and roll |
11:03 |
|
any last minute discussion before I #end |
11:03 |
|
thanks everyone for attending and being decisive :) |
11:03 |
|
and thanks tomeu and mchua for the preparatory work |
11:03 |
|
3 |
11:03 |
|
2 |
11:03 |
|
1 |
11:03 |
|
#endmeeting |