Talk:Open Badges

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search

Self Exclusion

You don't mention "Members", but instead "Contributors". Members and contributors are disjoint sets. I'd like a way to register for exclusion. Some contributors may be paid by other organisations, or may have to reject any badge because of conflict of interest.

Consider the Maintainer

Please also watch this talk by Nadia Eghbal (of GitHub) at linux.conf.au 2017;

Nadia has many other ideas.

Also this report is relevant;

Sugar is infrastructure.


Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho

2017-04-07 11:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho <cbigenhoAThotmail.com>:

The badges are a bad idea! There is absolutely no guarantee that badge holders would make any contributions to warrant the amounts they would be collecting just for being some kind of "hero" in the past. SugarLabs funds should be reserved for specific projects and products. If these special folks on the "anointed" list have specific projects they would like to be funded to do... great! Let them present proposals ... carefully thought out and carefully crafted proposals, to the SLOB for possible approval.

There is also an obvious, huge, conflict of interest in having so many of the proposed badge recipients voting on the issue. Doing something like this will take away all credibility of SugarLabs as an NGO or even as a viable organization that relies heavily on volunteer contributions to their efforts.

Yes, there is a potential conflict of interest, but that would be handled by a board in the usual fashion, those with a conflict recuse temporarily for duration of a decision, with full knowledge of the chair, and minuted. Boards can remunerate themselves, think of directors' fees, but they must do it at arms-length, so when one of the board members is to be remunerated for work done outside the board or for the board they must recuse themselves from the decision. How to handle conflict of interest in the board can include mentioning these strategies and procedures in a proposal, so Caryl's point that the proposal doesn't specifically address this; is valid. --Quozl (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Process for inclusion and exclusion by nominated contributors

Not all contributors can or will edit the Wiki, so it would be more appropriate for the board to contact the contributors formally by e-mail to ask if they wish to be included or excluded from receiving the stipend, and require a response either way. Any board members who become nominated contributors should not be asked this during the board meeting; contributors should be treated equally. --Quozl (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (EDT)


-1. The model is designed with the goal that contributors get active on the Sugar Labs Wiki. Additionally, the historic record of each nominee stating accepting or not the stipend is essential.
Laura Vargas Laura Vargas (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
That wasn't obvious. Your goal should be stated in the model. It would be more transparent that way. --Quozl (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2017 (EDT)