Talk:Oversight Board/2017-2019-candidates

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)

On the contrary, I have read the minutes in the link you provided and no where do I see a discussion about restricting statements to 1500 characters. Also, nowhere to I see documentation of the members committee discussion of this decision. I stand by my opinion that it is arbitrary and unnecessary. I also reiterate my decision to defer to the committee (although it would be comforting to see the discussion thread backing up your assertion.) --Walter (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Walter, backing up my assertion please read Line at 19:08 "Candidates should create a wiki entry below (1 entry per candidate, 1.500 characters max) sharing their vision and motivation." Not arbitrary but consented. Anyhow, you have been the only candidate complaining so I guess the limit was logic for everyone else. Laura Vargas (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

I am not sure how I missed the line at 19:08. Nonetheless, this reads as a report from the members committee, not an oversight board decision. Where is the members committee meeting log? I still see no justification ("logic") behind the limit explained and stand by my right to disagree with the decision. I am a bit taken back by your characterizing my disagreeing as complaining. I thought we were a community that welcomed discussion and criticism of the status quo. And I will say yet again, although I disagree with the decision (and the means by which it has been enforced), I defer to the committee. My statement is <= 1500 characters. I am not sure what more you want from me Laura. --Walter (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Again, the decision was taken by the Membership and Elections Committee and ratified during the SLOB's meeting. We try to keep the Systems list copied on all meetings in case you want to explore how we have taken all decisions about the elections. I guess your criticism is OK but inaccuracy and is not. Meeting complete Reference at http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/systems/2017-August/005514.html Laura Vargas (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

(0) Thank you for acknowledging that I am entitled to an opinion. (1) I have seen no evidence presented that any decision was taken by the Membership and Elections Committee. I await the link to that discussion. (2) Your reporting the decision to the oversight board is not a ratification. Can you please explain where I am inaccurate? If you go back to my original post, I didn't question the process by which the decision was made -- although now I have my doubts as I see no discussion of the 1500 character limit by the committee, only your proposing it -- but rather, I expressed my opinion of the decision. How is that "inaccurate"? Meanwhile, back to coding. --Walter (talk) 09:16, 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)

As a candidate who read the instructions and wrote within the limit, I think it is disrespectful of other candidates to bypass this requirement, even if you don't agree with it. There are plenty of venues for expression of your opinion, but it is fair to voters to have a summary in one location. Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. As a matter of fact, my statement meets the character limit, so to suggest that my statement does not is nothing but an attempt to disparage me. That said, I reserve my right to express my dissatisfaction with the limit and the manner in which it was implemented. No evidence has been given that the committee actually discussed and agreed to this limit. The email chain provided only suggests that it was presented as a fait du complete, not "ratified" by either the committee, or as suggested, by the oversight board. A unilateral decision, yet to be justified, by one member of the committee. This committee member also presumed to speak on behalf of the committee in voicing the opinion in these pages that my quoting my mentor Seymour Papert and a youth who grew up with Sugar was inappropriate. Only after this duplicity was exposed did she revert her assertion that she was speaking for the committee. Of course, there was no apology made. The history of this discussion page is quite clear. --Walter (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2017 (EDT)