Oversight Board/Decisions

This page (largely complete) is intended to be a one-stop place for reviewing all of the Sugar Labs oversight board (SLOB) actions and decisions.

The date headlines are the date that the motion passed, failed, or timed out.

2016-06-14

FAILED MOTION 2016-38 Dave Crossland: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists. (not seconded)

2016-06-11

FAILED MOTION 2016-37 Tony Anderson: to undertake a fund raising drive. Arrangements will be made to enable on-line contributions by PayPal, debit or credit card or other means. Once the means to make contributions is in place, the Financial Manager will initiate and lead the drive. The Sugar Labs web site will show progress in donations toward the goal. (not seconded)

2016-06-10

FAILED MOTION 2016-36 Dave Crossland: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current practice of requiring a seconding before voting. (not seconded)
FAILED MOTION 2016-35 Dave Crossland: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB member will announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the motion; the chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are voted on; the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of any topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled. (not seconded)
AGREED MOTION 2016-34 Dave Crossland: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all GSoC mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC Admin (for example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a mentor, their share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without further motions to approve the spending. The share is calculated from the total awarded for the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar Labs income is donated to Software Freedom Conservancy for organisational services), minus 5% (retained for Sugar Labs General Funds), divided by the number of mentors for the project. For example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at $500, the total revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for Sugar Labs is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor. (5 votes for and 1 against so far)
FAILED MOTION 2016-33 Laura Vargas: to update current SL vision statement ("About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around the world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development.") to the new proposed text: "Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design, develop and deploy high-quality Free/Libre Software that facilitates self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children of all continents." (not seconded)

2016-06-09

FAILED MOTION 2016-32 Dave Crossland: The value of $Y in the Finance Manager Guidelines should be $200 (not seconded)

2016-06-03

log

FAILED MOTION 2016-31 Dave Crossland: To adopt the Vision proposal 2016. (not seconded)
FAILED MOTION 2016-30 Dave Crossland: To add to the bylaws a new section, “Sugar Labs Oversight Board Spending Guidelines” (dependent upon MOTION 2016-27)
FAILED MOTION 2016-29 Dave Crossland: To append the following text to the existing bylaw for the Finance Manager office (dependent upon MOTION 2016-27)
FAILED MOTION 2016-28 Caryl Bigenho: To define procedures for requesting, obtaining, and reporting use of SugarLabs funds (dependent upon MOTION 2016-27)
FAILED MOTION 2016-27 Caryl Bigenho: To replace existing bylaw for Finance Manager (not seconded)

2016-05-29

FAILED MOTION 2016-26 Dave Crossland: To request donations from Sugar Labs Members, to be allocated to the General Fund through the SFC. The annual donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as low-income (such as students); $36, $120, or $600 USD from general members. (not seconded)

FAILED MOTION 2016-25 Dave Crossland: To request a membership donation from each currently active Sugar Labs Member to be allocated to the General Fund for the calendar year of 2016, and a public statement about how they use Sugar and why they are involved in Sugar Labs to post on the website; there is no penalty for not paying a membership or not providing a statement; by default members who donate will be kept private, and requested to opt-in to be recognised. The donation requested will be $12 USD from members who self-identify as low-income (such as students); $36 USD from general members; $120 from members who can opt-in to be placed prominently on the website; and $600 from members who can (privately if they wish) submit a release codename, subject to SLOB approval. (not seconded)

FAILED MOTION 2016-24 Dave Crossland: Whereas it is the general policy of Sugar Labs to retain all GSoC mentoring stipends in the General Fund, if a mentor asks a GSoC Admin (for example in 2016, Walter or Lionel) to pay a stipend to a mentor, their share of the stipend amount will be disbursed without further motions to approve the spending. The share is calculated from the total awarded for the GSoC slot by Google, minus 10% (as all Sugar Labs income is donated to Software Freedom Conservancy for organisational services), minus 5% (retained for Sugar Labs General Funds), divided by the number of mentors for the project. For example, in a year with 6 slots and 10 mentors at $500, the total revenue is $3,000; 10% for Conservancy is $300 and 5% for Sugar Labs is $150, leaving a total of $2,550 or $255 per mentor. (not seconded)

2016-05-25

FAILED MOTION 2016-23 Caryl Bigenho: To define procedures for requesting, obtaining, and reporting use of SugarLabs funds (dependent upon MOTION 2016-22)
FAILED MOTION 2016-22 Caryl Bigenho: To replace existing bylaw for Finance Manager (not seconded)

2016-05-12

AGREED MOTION 2016-21 Walter Bender: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing Sugar Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88. (See http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html)

2016-05-11

FAILED MOTION 2016-20: to allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit. (3 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstains)

2016-05-06

AGREED MOTION 2016-19: To pay for laboratoriosazucar.org domain registration renewal
FAILED MOTION 2016-30 Dave Crossland: Motion: To add to the bylaws a new section, “Sugar Labs Oversight Board Spending Guidelines” (dependent upon MOTION 2016-27)
FAILED MOTION 2016-29 Dave Crossland: Motion: To append the following text to the existing bylaw for the Finance Manager office (dependent upon MOTION 2016-27)
FAILED MOTION 2016-28 Caryl Bigenho: Motion: To define procedures for requesting, obtaining, and reporting use of SugarLabs funds (dependent upon MOTION 2016-27)
FAILED MOTION 2016-27 Caryl Bigenho: To replace existing bylaw for Finance Manager (not seconded, further drafting requested)
AGREED MOTION 2016-14: To fund a program to initiate the translation of Sugar into Yoruba. The work would be led by Samson Goddy and reviewed by Chris Leonard, in his role as Translation Community Manager (See [1]).
AGREED MOTION 2016-13 Dave Crossland: To update the Sugar License from GPLv2 to GPLv3 [2]
FAILED MOTION 2016-12: To allow the mentors participating in Google Summer of Code to disperse the mentor stipend among themselves as they see fit (See [3]).
FAILED MOTION 2016-11 Lionel Laske: To adopt the wiki Vision proposal for 2016 (not seconded)

2016-04-09

AGREED MOTION 2016-10 Walter Bender: To offer Devin U. an honorarium ($500) to compensate him since he needed to take a week off from work to run two Turtle/Music Blocks workshops at the Constructionism Conference. The funds would be allocated from the Trip Advisor grant which are in support of promoting and advancing Turtle Blocks around the world. (Vote taken by email.)
AGREED MOTION 2016-09 Walter Bender: Walter, as PI of the Trip Advisor grant, will inform the SL oversight board of his plans for workshops that fall under the guise promotion of Turtle Blocks but otherwise has discretion in organizing and funding these events, within the budget constraints of grant and the travel guidelines of the SFC. (Vote taken by email.)

2016-04-06

AGREED MOTION 2016-08: To approve the position of Translation-Community Manager as described at Translation-Community Manager.
AGREED MOTION 2016-07: That Chris Leonard be named to this position effective immediately.
AGREED MOTION 2016-06: That the Translation-Community Manager be paid a stipend of $1000/month.

2016-04-01

AGREED MOTION 2016-05: In keeping with the board 2010's decision on this matter from a different era, it was suggest that if a Board Member (1) fails to vote and attend pre-scheduled Board meetings for more than 12 weeks, (2) resigns or (3) dies, then the Board is empowered and encouraged to appoint a replacement for this seat. Finally, just a clarification that the Replacement Board Member would be required to defend their seat during the very next election.

2016-03-04

AGREED MOTION 2016-04: Based on Translation Proposal, Tony (and other SLOB members) should write up a job description with goals and reporting structure for a coordinator position to be submitted to the SFC.
AGREED MOTION 2016-03: Restrict email voting to 1 week going forward, to remove confusion from the current voting process, keeping focus. Board members' email votes would be required to arrive within One Week Maximum (168.0 hours) of the original motion. (Any motion that fails to pass within this 1-week sunset period, can of course be attempted again in future, e.g. if long-term overseas/off-grid/medical absences require another later vote on the same topic).

2016-02-12

AGREED MOTION 2016-02: Moving regular SLOB meeting dates to the first Friday of the month at 16UTC
AGREED MOTION 2016-01: Apply for GSoC 2016 (Lionel and Walter as co-admins)

2015-12-17

FAILED MOTION 2015-07(3 In Favor, 4 Abstentions): to pay Devin Ulibarri $500 for help organize and run the Turtle workshop in Bangkok

(See renewed motion passed on 2016-04-09.)

2015-10-12

AGREED MOTION 2015-06: Apply to GCI

2015-09-14

AGREED MOTION 2015-05: funding to file an affidavits required to maintain the registration of Sugar Labs' trademarks with the USPTO.
ACTION: Walter to recruit mentors for GCI

2015-07-06

ACTION: acknowledged the numerous contributions to Sugar from the late Marco Presenti Gritti.

2015-05-06

AGREED MOTION 2015-04: via email to add Samson Goody to the Membership Committee (DONE)

2015-05-04

AGREED MOTION 2015-03: to share survey results with community (DONE)
ACTION: Gonzalo to post results (DONE)
ACTION: Gonzalo to write to each of the respondents
AGREED MOTION 2015-02: that Claudia and Walter go to NI to discuss Sugar/OLPC future with the Zamoras
ACTION: Walter to make a first pass at culling the decisions from past meetings into one page (this page)

2015-04-06

AGREED MOTION 2015-01: appoint Icarito and Caryl to the election committee and to try to recruit a youth member to the committee.

2015-01-14

ACTION: organize a summit to discuss the future of Sugar
ACTION: do a survey to solicit feedback from deployments

0

2014-10-07

ACTION: Recruit mentors for GCI
ACTION: Recruit candidates for oversight board

2014-07-08

AGREED MOTION 2014-02: on a .UY venue for a summit in September 2014. Jose Miguel and Daniel will get back to us about specifics.

2014-03-03

ACTION: everyone solicit students for GSoC

2014-02-05

AGREED MOTION 2014-01: to Gonzalo and Manuq's proposal for Background Image Contest

2013-11-04

AGREED MOTION 2013-06: Luke to run election for oversight board again
AGREED MOTION 2013-05: to give cjl discretion over the i18n funds in the Trip Advisor grant

2013-10-18

AGREED MOTION 2013-04: we would apply again to Google Code In

2013-03-21

AGREED MOTION 2013-03: the next release will be Sugar 1.0

2013-02-25

AGREED MOTION 2013-02: to establish a category for Sugar Labs advisors/educators/friends
ACTION: Claudia and Walter will meet to start planning Turtle Art Day
AGREED MOTION 2013-01: to apply for Google Summer of Code 2013

2013-01-07

ACTION: ClaudiaU agreed to share Making Learning Visible with SLOB members (and Tonyf and JT4Sugar)

2012-05-30

AGREED MOTION 2012-05: to modify the Trademark and Local Labs pages in the wiki (See TM Policy and Local Labs Policy)

2012-05-03

AGREED MOTION 2012-04: We approved a budget of up to US $5000 for two servers.
AGREED MOTION 2012-03: Sugar Labs joins the SFC GPL enforcement program
ACTION MOTION 2012-02: Walter to bring code-of-conduct discussion to the community.
ACTION MOTION 2012-01: SLOB members to get signed agreements to the SFC regarding new SFC by-laws.

2011-12-02

AGREED MOTION 2011-09: The Sugar Labs Oversight Board thanked Bernie Innocenti and Mel Chua for their dedicated service to the community in their role as members of the oversight board.

2011-09-16

AGREED MOTION 2011-08: to keep the GSoC 2010 mentor funds as our general funds.

2011-08-05

AGREED MOTION 2011-07: to award Sugar participation certificates (See Certificate Program).
AGREED MOTION 2011-06: to give North Dakota State University authority to establish a local Sugar Lab.

2011-06-09

AGREED MOTION 2011-05: to endorse Free Software as defined here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

2011-05-08

AGREED MOTION 2011-04: Bernie (head of infrastructure team) is authorized to approve spending tickets filed on the bug tracker up to $200.
AGREED MOTION 2011-03: to update the governance page.

2011-02-10

AGREED MOTION 2011-02: SL endorses the idea that community members have kids: means more Sugar hackers in the future !!
AGREED MOTION 2011-01: Local labs can issue Sugar certificates (and charge for this service whatever they want) but only if: (1) they maintain a page on our wiki explaining what content they use for training, where to download it, and what pricing they use; and (2) all the content they use for training is licensed under one of the licenses recommend by http://opensource.org/docs/osd and/or http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses.

2010-12-13

AGREED MOTION 2010-10: Oversight_Board/Project_Motion
AGREED MOTION 2010-09: SL would like to acknowledge and celebrate the marriage of acaire11 and icarito : the first Sugar marriage!!!

2010-12-01

AGREED MOTION 2010-08: Each active team and local lab should propose a few delegates from that team to SLOBs. We will invite the delegates to SLOBs meetings, and rotate scheduled times during SLOBs meetings to hear reports from their team or lab.
AGREED MOTION 2010-07: The default time/day of the week for SLOBs meetings will be Thursdays at 15:00 EST (20:00 UTC)
AGREED MOTION 2010-06: If a SLOB member misses one month of regular weekly meetings in a row, twice during one calendar year, SLOBs may find a replacement for their seat.

2010-09-28

AGREED MOTION 2010-05: We, the SLOB, acknowledge and praise the efforts of the release team for bringing us 0.90!!

2010-05-07

AGREED MOTION 2010-04: to a Trademark policy.

2010-03-05

AGREED MOTION 2010-03: (1) Bundles with non-Sugar dependencies be clearly marked in ASLO; (2) We work towards a mechanism for supporting access to non-Sugar dependencies--a specific endorsement of being open; and (3) We do not restrict ASLO while we progress towards #2.

2010-02-26

AGREED MOTION 2010-02: to authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to systems@ for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.

2010-01-22

AGREED MOTION 2010-01: to authorize Luke Faraone to ship some used hardware from the Wikipedia Foundation (12 servers) to various hosting sites. The cost should not exceed US$300.

2009-12-18

AGREED MOTION 2009-18: Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to focus resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more effectively.
AGREED MOTION 2009-17: Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution so that Sugar can be marketed effectively, until such time when a trademark policy, agreement, and process is put in place: SoaS will be the first project to go through that process.

2009-12-11

AGREED MOTION 2009-16: to adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable, and always asking the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
AGREED MOTION 2009-15: SL is and should be a GNU/Linux distributor.
AGREED MOTION 2009-14: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions. This work can include helping to promote distros, and hosting them.
AGREED MOTION 2009-13: SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros, but it should only choose to more strongly promote a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."

2009-12-04

AGREED MOTION 2009-12: when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to SLOBs.

2009-11-20

AGREED MOTION 2009-11: Close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible.
AGREED MOTION 2009-10: Give a two-week deadline to the Soas DP

2009-09-25

AGREED MOTION 2009-09: We appointed a decision panel (by a vote of 3 for, 0 against, 1 abstain, 3 absent) with the following mandate:; "Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:; "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"; "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"; "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"; Any other question the Decision Panel deems required to provide an answer to the original question:"Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?"

2008-09-05

AGREED MOTION 2009-08: The Oversight Board acknowledged and celebrated the great job Simon has been doing on managing the 0.82 release.

2009-07-18

AGREED MOTION 2009-07: There was consensus that we have made sufficient outreach to the community that the initial list is a fair representation of Sugar Labs; we look forward to having the Membership Committee take it from http://selectricity.org/
AGREED MOTION 2009-06: There was consensus that Walter would put together a strawman election process based upon the Selectricity tool. We are targeting an August election.
AGREED MOTION 2009-05: There was consensus that we begin with just Oversight and Members committees.
AGREED MOTION 2009-04: We agreed for the need to solicit more feedback in the wiki for the design direction being proposed by Luca.
AGREED MOTION 2009-03: We agreed that further discussions with the SFLA about the merits of trademark protection is needed.
AGREED MOTION 2009-02: We agreed on the desirability of Sugar Labs participation at conferences around the world, but hope to meet the need by utilizing locals to whatever extent possible. We also discussed the desirability to have a meeting of Sugar Labs developers a couple of times per year. We discussed the possibility of an on-line meeting that leverages resources above and beyond IRC.
AGREED MOTION 2009-01: on the necessity of Sugar Labs participation in the learning community, but don't yet have a good handle on the best and most efficient means of accomplishing this.