Talk:Requesting a SLOBs decision

This is currently an options-brainstorming page for several things:


 * What kinds of decisions SLOBs should make (a small and exact list; everything else is Not A SLOBs Decision)
 * What kinds of decisions SLOBs should explicitly not make (for common issues that we should put a redirection pointer on)
 * How a SLOBs decision is requested
 * How a SLOBs decision request is triaged
 * How a SLOBs decision is made
 * How a SLOBs decision is announced
 * How a SLOBs decision is amended

'''These are not final decisions or procedures. This page is currently gathering options to decide from. Please add your ideas here.'''

Kinds of decisions SLOBs should make

 * 1)  legal issues in general, most pertinently formal usage of the Sugar Labs trademark, and other trademarks/logos SL legally owns the rights to
 * 2)  importing and disbursement of funds that come from the SL treasury; financial issues in general
 * 3)  changes in the governance rules
 * 4)  amendments to the mission/vision statements
 * 5)  granting Team Status to a project (which allows it to use the trademark, gives it a mailing list, other benefits) - and removing said status
 * 6)  appointing/changing/removing official positions: Team lead, appointed position (treasurer, ombudsperson, executive director)
 * 7)  appointing/changing/removing other positions
 * 8) maintainer
 * 9) sysadmin
 * 10) ml moderator
 * 11) membership
 * 12)  official statements required to interact with other organizations/individuals such as "$FOO announces $BAR in partnership with Sugar Labs," or anything that says something like "a Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with Sugar Labs"
 * 13)  clarifications on strategy, for others to be able to plan their work
 * 14) your ideas here

Kinds of decisions SLOBs should explicitly not make

 * 1) NOT: sending out press releases (Marketing team)
 * 2) NOT: can I start this project (just do it - only teams need approval)
 * 3) NOT: can I join the project (just do it)
 * 4) NOT: can I give a talk/presentation about Sugar Labs at $occasion (just do it, but please share your stuff so others can remix it)
 * 5) NOT: can I add this feature to the code / what's going to be in the next release (Development team)
 * 6) NOT: design issues (Design team)
 * 7) NOT: can we install $foobar for our ticket tracker / wiki / etc? (Infrastructure team)
 * 8) NOT: first-level conflict resolution (only when public dialogue on mailing lists has failed should there be an appeal for ombudsperson/SLOBs to step in for a specific decision related to one of the decision-types we /can/ make)
 * 9) NOT: can I start this deployment (just do it)
 * 10) NOT: "I'm a member of the Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with $name, a volunteer at Sugar Labs"(so individuals can make statements on behalf of themselves and their organizations, but not on behalf of SL)
 * 11) your ideas here

How a SLOBs decision is requested
Which of these are required? All can be optional.


 * 1) wiki: Add a link to http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meetings#Upcoming_Topics with the topic, containing the information specified below.
 * 2) list: Email iaep and cc the slobs list with the subject "SLOBs Topic: name-of-topic"
 * 3) OPTION: SLOB triager for that meeting replies with authoritative "this is on the agenda or not" to that mailing list thread (mailing list thread is the final word)
 * 4) OPTION: SLOBs triagers will attempt to reply to list with topic status once it's triaged, but the final word is the meeting minutes for the upcoming meeting.
 * 5) ticketing system: file a ticket under the 'slobs' component

Decision requests should include (select which ones from this list):


 * 1) Link to existing discussion thread(s) on public mailing list
 * 2) Brief (1-5 sentence) summary of each option to choose between
 * 3) Rationale for why this needs to escalate to SLOBs (it's one of the "this is a SLOBs decision" items, or justification why community discussion and consensus is not working)
 * 4) Complete this sentence: "If SLOBs does not make this decision..."
 * 5) others?

How a SLOBs decision request is triaged
Three options for triage:
 * wontfix - "not a SLOBs decision"
 * wontfixnow - "you need to talk about this on the mailing list more, come back later"
 * ok - "goes on the agenda and will be decided at the next meeting"

Who triages and how? Options:


 * 1) meeting chair triages (since they're preparing the agenda)
 * 2) meeting chair triages (since they're preparing the agenda) BUT a majority (4) of other SLOBs at the meeting or in iaep beforehand can override that triage and bring the topic up for discussion on the meeting anyway
 * 3) robert's rules: a motion has to be made and then seconded for a vote (triage happens during meeting, led by meeting chair)
 * 4) 4 SLOBs (a majority) have to +1 an item for a SLOBs decision (either at the meeting or on the agenda page beforehand), or it goes into wontfix

Possible additions:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) everything that isn't made into a motion is dropped from the agenda

How a SLOBs decision is made
Once the board has agreed on making a decision on a particular issue, we need to define how such decision will be made. Some questions that would matter:

Voting medium:


 * 1) IRC
 * 2) email
 * 3) wiki

Voting timeline:


 * 1) immediate in-meeting
 * 2) with absentees excluded (including this option for completeness)
 * 3) with absentees voting via email to the SLOBs list beforehand
 * 4) with absentees delegating/relaying vote to another SLOB who will be present
 * 5) voting window opens one week before meeting, closes in meeting
 * 6) voting window opens at meeting, closes one week after meeting
 * 7) substitute timeframes other than "one week" in above two options

Level of agreement:

Should all decisions require the same level of agreement? Maybe changing the rules require a stronger agreement such as unanimity or a greater quorum?

Voting system:


 * 1) unanimous consensus needed
 * 2) unanimous nondissent needed (either consensus or abstain)
 * 3) majority needed, no dissent (at least 4 yea, no nay)
 * 4) simple voting (more yeas than nays voting, period)

How a SLOBs decision is announced

 * 1) wiki
 * 2) email
 * 3) iaep
 * 4) slobs
 * 5) meeting minutes

How a SLOBs decision is amended
Amendments are decisions, and are therefore requested and granted exactly the same way.

IRC transcript
15:16:20 #startmeeting 15:16:39 (no meetbot yet, but... I'll tail and sed and mail to list.) 15:16:44 Yep. Lemme pull that up. 15:16:58 oh, the bot is on strike 15:16:58 for some months now 15:17:10 * sdziallas looks around, wonders what kind of meeting is going on here. 15:18:17 tomeu: http://fpaste.org/qzZU/ 15:18:56 sdziallas: we're coming up with a few draft sets of governance procedures for SLOBs, to be (hopefully) ratified at the next meeting so we have a clear notion of what the decision making process is for various things 15:18:58 sdziallas: it's a surprise meeting ;) 15:19:10 mchua, tomeu: hiya :) 15:19:14 it's something tomeu and I offered to do at the last SLOBs meeting. 15:19:26 oh, that sounds interesting! 15:19:27 hmm, I tihnk someone else offered me, but well... 15:19:45 * sdziallas didn't make it to the last meeting and hasn't gotten to read through the logs, yet. 15:19:51 but sounds actually pretty great! 15:20:27-!- CanoeBerry [n=Canoe@c-98-216-65-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 15:21:25 * mtd can't resist suggesting Robert's Rules of Order, since it won't slow things down much :) 15:21:27 mchua: I have 40 minutes before a conf call 15:21:29 * mtd shuts up now. 15:22:01 tomeu: Okay. We can't get through that entire list in that time, so I'd propose we start                with "What are the things requiring a SLOBs decision?" 15:22:10 brainstorm a list for that 15:22:17 hmm 15:22:20 (mtd and sdziallas and others, you're more than welcome to join) 15:22:33 get an idea of the scope of things SLOBs might look at 15:22:46 mchua: you mean which are appropriate subjects to present to SLOBs for an statement? 15:22:52 Yes. 15:22:56 mchua: I'm happy to jump in, might be a bit busy over here, though ;) ...*lurking* 15:23:04 Not that this would be a final list, but a strawman to be a rough idea 15:23:15 and then have SLOBs's first set of decisions be to go down that list and say yes/no. 15:23:17 to each. 15:23:43 10m at most to brainstorm that list, and then the remainder of the time coming up with several variants of "What is the process by which a SLOBs decision is..." 15:23:54 {requested, made, announced, amended, etc} 15:24:00 hmm 15:24:06 so that we can mix-and-match the best options together at the next meeting. 15:24:21 * mchua will post this log to iaep afterwards with a summary, since tomeu probably has to leave before she does 15:24:33 mchua: anything seen as relevant for SLs missions? 15:24:40 at the SLOBs discretion? 15:25:07 well, our mission is to "produce, distribute, and support the use of the Sugar learning platform" 15:25:09 which is *really* broad 15:25:29 and leaving it to SLOBs discretion is starting to not work as well as we scale up 15:25:42-!- walterbender [n=chatzill@18.85.49.106] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 15:26:02 what do we need to ask SLOBs about? what don't we? Most of it is "no, you don't have to ask," but this isn't very clear yet. 15:26:07 mchua: ok, but are we going to find a concrete set of subjects that people will accept? 15:26:25 ok, if we are brainstorming: 15:26:34 -- BRAINSTORM START - 15:26:40 - official statements required to interact with other organizations/individuals 15:26:59 - formal usage of the Sugar Labs trademark, and other trademarks/logos SL legally owns the rights to 15:27:22 - clarifications on strategy, for others to be able to plan their work 15:27:50 - disbursement of funds that come from the SL treasury 15:27:58-!- FranXOphonie [n=FranXOph@208.111.82.68] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)] 15:28:38 - granting a project Official SL Project Status (which allows it to use the trademark, gives it a                mailing list, other benefits we need to outline at some point) 15:28:56 * mchua will also start listing things that should NOT come through slobs (still in brainstorm mode) 15:29:05 NOT: sending out press releases (Marketing team) 15:29:13 NOT: can I start this project (just do it) 15:29:17 NOT: can I join the project (just do it) 15:29:48 NOT: can I give a talk/presentation about Sugar Labs at $occasion (just do it, but please share                     your stuff so others can remix it) 15:30:18 NOT: can I add this feature to the code / what's going to be in the next release (Development team) 15:30:27 NOT: design issues (Design team) 15:31:05 NOT: can we install $foobar for our ticket tracker / wiki / etc? (Infrastructure team) 15:31:08 remove someone from a position such as maintainer, sysadmin, ml moderator, etc because of behavior against SLs mission 15:31:46-!- CanoeBerry__ is now known as CanoeBerry 15:32:02 whenever you have a platform, you are going to be bugged about this things 15:32:09 oops 15:32:20 (that was for #sugar) 15:32:40 NOT: first-level conflict resolution (only when public dialogue on mailing lists has failed should                     there be an appeal for ombudsperson/SLOBs to step in for a specific decision related to one of                      the decision-types we /can/ make) 15:33:18 NOT: can I start this deployment (just do it) 15:33:49 changes in the governance rules? 15:34:03 and amendments to the mission/vision statements 15:34:48 examples of official statements (from the first brainstorm on this list) would be "$FOO announces                $BAR in partnership with Sugar Labs" 15:34:54 mchua: btw, will you have time later today? I will be free from 16 UTC 15:35:13 anything that says something like "a Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with Sugar Labs" 15:35:28 that's related to the trademark, right? 15:35:37 would be something like licensing a trademark 15:35:40 tomeu: possibly; I'm not sure yet, today looks pretty busy 15:36:05 NOT: "I'm a member of the Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with $name, a volunteer at Sugar Labs" 15:36:29 (so individuals can make statements on behalf of themselves and their organizations, but not on behalf of SL) 15:36:40 brainstorm timeout imminent. last thoughts? 15:36:53 in 5... 15:36:54 4... 15:36:55 3... 15:36:57 2.. 15:36:58 1... 15:37:03 BRAINSTORM END - 15:37:14 Ok, that's a pretty good-lookin' list. 15:37:15-!- FranXOphonie [n=FranXOph@208.111.82.68] has joined #sugar-meeting 15:37:34 tomeu: how much time do you have now? 15:37:46 we've got 4 things to make options for 15:37:55 1. how SLOBs decisions are requested 15:38:05 2. made (Including special cases like abstains and absentees.) 15:38:09 3. announced 15:38:10 4. amended 15:38:17 some of these are obviously easier than others ;) 15:38:47 #topic How SLOBs decisions are requested 15:38:48 mchua: 20 mins 15:39:16 Option 1: add to the wiki page of the next SLOBs agenda (have template) 15:39:18 just send email to IAEP? 15:39:35 Option 3: add to agenda page /and/ send email to IAEP 15:40:18 Also, proposal to explicitly state that you don't have to be present at the SLOBs meeting 15:40:25 to request a decision 15:40:37 ...I think I'm done with this one... tomeu? 15:41:08 mchua: I guess we can just propose these options to slobs? 15:41:14 Yep, that's the idea. 15:41:28 We set out a couple options and then decide as a group, but we have concrete proposals to choose from. 15:41:31 I personally prefer to do as much as possible first on the ml 15:41:38 * mchua nods 15:41:39 instead of starting to discuss on the meeting 15:41:56 yeah, I'm going to post logs (with summaries of the various options) on the wiki and ping IAEP once you have to run 15:42:00 so adding to the agenda could be done later, as a consequence of the discussion ensued 15:42:14 requirement for posting on agenda: link to mailing list discussion 15:42:57 ok, let's move to the next point/ 15:42:58 ? 15:43:00 is it voting? 15:43:05 #topic how SLOBs decisions are made 15:43:55 proposal: first, we decide whether an issue is wontfix, wontfixnow, not-SLOBs, or SLOBs-decision 15:44:07 whoops, wontfix == not-SLOBs 15:44:25 wontfixnow == "you need to talk about this on the mailing list more, come back later" 15:44:36 (so that's really 3 possible states) 15:44:48 and SLOBs-decisions are just yes/no 15:45:02 ok 15:45:22 for that initial triage, we have a couple options 15:45:59 * that week's meeting chair triages (since they're preparing the agenda) BUT a majority (4) of                other SLOBs can override that triage and bring the topic up for discussion on the meeting anyway 15:46:48 * robert's rules: a motion has to be made and then seconded for a vote 15:47:04 (with the implication that everything that isn't made into a motion is dropped from the agenda) 15:47:09 (and the agenda purged each week) 15:47:17 * others? 15:47:30 * mchua wants to do some sort of regular purge to make sure only active issues come up, and that the list stays trimmed and very very small 15:47:42 (but that's my personal preference for extremely minimal governance) 15:48:18 as can bee seen here, action items can accumulate as well: http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoardPublic/Minutes/20090917 15:48:23 * mchua nods, grins 15:48:47-!- edmcnierney_away is now known as edmcnierney 15:49:28 another option: 4 SLOBs (a majority) have to +1 an item for a SLOBs decision (either at the meeting or                on the agenda page beforehand), or it goes into wontfix 15:49:31 (but can be brought up again later) 15:49:46 aaanyway, once something is in "yes, this is a SLOBs decision" state, what do we do? 15:49:59 option 1: unanimous consensus needed 15:50:08 option 2: unanimous nondissent needed (either consensus or abstain) 15:50:23 option 3: majority needed, no dissent (at least 4 yea, no nay) 15:50:42 option 4: simple voting (more yeas than nays) 15:51:32 (I'm assuming that all issues being Decided have already had extended mailing list discussions,                so it's really the decision and not the discussion that needs to happen at these meetings.) 15:51:52 option 4 could have a quorum 15:52:17-!- walterbender [n=chatzill@18.85.49.106] has joined #sugar-meeting 15:52:43 mchua: ok, need to stop, hope to be back in 1 hour, approx. 15:52:44 tomeu: option 4 with quorum is the same as option 3 15:53:06 tomeu: Ok. I'm going to put these on a wiki page and email iaep and we can resume when we're both back 15:53:10 #endmeeting