Talk:Open Badges - Revision history

Quozl: /* Process for inclusion and exclusion by nominated contributors */

2017-04-09T22:05:08Z

Process for inclusion and exclusion by nominated contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, 9 April 2017
Line 34:		Line 34:
	:-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.		:-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 [[User:Laura Vargas\|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas\|talk]]) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (EDT)		:Laura Vargas [[User:Laura Vargas\|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Quozl\|Quozl]] ([[User talk:Quozl\|talk]]) 18:05, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

Quozl: wikimedia talk page convention is to indent replies

2017-04-09T22:03:00Z

wikimedia talk page convention is to indent replies

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 9 April 2017
Line 32:		Line 32:


	-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.		:-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 [[User:Laura Vargas\|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas\|talk]]) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (EDT)		:Laura Vargas [[User:Laura Vargas\|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas\|talk]]) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

Laura Vargas: /* Process for inclusion and exclusion by nominated contributors */

2017-04-09T21:13:52Z

Process for inclusion and exclusion by nominated contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 9 April 2017
Line 30:		Line 30:

	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. --[[User:Quozl\|Quozl]] ([[User talk:Quozl\|talk]]) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (EDT)		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. --[[User:Quozl\|Quozl]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Laura Vargas\|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas\|talk]]) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

Quozl at 21:59, 7 April 2017

2017-04-07T21:59:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 7 April 2017
Line 24:		Line 24:

	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.		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. --[[User:Quozl\|Quozl]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Quozl\|Quozl]] ([[User talk:Quozl\|talk]]) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Laura Vargas: /* Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho */

2017-04-07T17:35:16Z

Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 7 April 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	= Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho =		= Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho =

	2017-04-07 11:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho <~~cbigenho@hotmail~~.com>:		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.		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.		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.

Laura Vargas: Included Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho on 2017-04-07

2017-04-07T17:23:56Z

Included Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho on 2017-04-07

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 7 April 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Sugar is infrastructure.		Sugar is infrastructure.


			= Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho =

			2017-04-07 11:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho@hotmail.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.

Quozl: Created page with "= 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 cont..."

2017-02-26T22:56:10Z

Created page with "= 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 cont..."

New page

= 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;
* [https://linux.conf.au/schedule/presentation/106/ Consider the Maintainer] synopsis on linux.conf.au,
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2AR1owg0ao Consider the Maintainer] on Youtube,

Nadia has many other ideas.

Also this report is relevant;
* [https://fordfoundcontentthemes.blob.core.windows.net/media/2976/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure.pdf The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure],

Sugar is infrastructure.