Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oversight Board/2017-2019-candidates"

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search
(added reply on the 1500 character's limit unconformity)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
:I don't follow the logic--seems arbitrary. I didn't agree with purging the members list either. But I defer to the committee. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
 
:I don't follow the logic--seems arbitrary. I didn't agree with purging the members list either. But I defer to the committee. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Seems you have passed my answer on the previous paragraph. Again, please read to remember this procedure was approved during SLOB's August meeting. [http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/2017-08-04 August meeting][[User:Laura Vargas|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas|talk]]) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
  
 
I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant information such as quoting other people's thoughts different from those thoughts of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board.
 
I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant information such as quoting other people's thoughts different from those thoughts of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board.

Revision as of 00:08, 13 September 2017

I suppose the (seemingly arbitrary) limit of 1500 characters has forced me to be focused. You can look at the change log to see my 3000 character statement. --Walter (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

The 1500 character's limit is strategic to increase readability of all candidates statements. It was properly presented as the requirement for valid candidacies to current Oversight Board during August meeting. Laura Vargas (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

I don't follow the logic--seems arbitrary. I didn't agree with purging the members list either. But I defer to the committee. --Walter (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
Seems you have passed my answer on the previous paragraph. Again, please read to remember this procedure was approved during SLOB's August meeting. August meetingLaura Vargas (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant information such as quoting other people's thoughts different from those thoughts of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board. Laura Vargas (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (EDT) and updated by Laura Vargas (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Another "properly presented" requirement? --Walter (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for your clarification. While I appreciate your input, I do think it is appropriate to quote people from whom I have drawn inspiration regarding the development of and sustaining of Sugar, so I will risk leaving my statement as is. --Walter (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2017 (EDT)