| 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 |