779
edits
Changes
Talk:Requesting a SLOBs decision (view source)
Revision as of 05:51, 2 November 2009
, 05:51, 2 November 2009Created page with ' This is currently an options-brainstorming page for several things: * What kinds of decisions SLOBs should make (a small and exact list; everything else is Not A SLOBs Decisio…'
This is currently an options-brainstorming page for several things:
* What kinds of decisions SLOBs should make (a small and exact list; everything else is Not A SLOBs Decision)
* What kinds of decisions SLOBs should explicitly not make (for common issues that we should put a redirection pointer on)
* How a SLOBs decision is requested
* How a SLOBs decision request is triaged
* How a SLOBs decision is made
* How a SLOBs decision is announced
* How a SLOBs decision is amended
'''These are not final decisions or procedures. This page is currently gathering options to decide from. Please add your ideas here.'''
== Options ==
=== Kinds of decisions SLOBs should make ===
# legal issues in general, most pertinently formal usage of the Sugar Labs trademark, and other trademarks/logos SL legally owns the rights to
# importing and disbursement of funds that come from the SL treasury; financial issues in general
# changes in the governance rules
# amendments to the mission/vision statements
# granting Team Status to a project (which allows it to use the trademark, gives it a mailing list, other benefits) - and removing said status
# appointing/changing/removing official positions: Team lead, appointed position (treasurer, ombudsperson, executive director)
# appointing/changing/removing other positions
## maintainer
## sysadmin
## ml moderator
## membership
# official statements required to interact with other organizations/individuals such as "$FOO announces $BAR in partnership with Sugar Labs," or anything that says something like "a Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with Sugar Labs"
# clarifications on strategy, for others to be able to plan their work
# your ideas here
=== Kinds of decisions SLOBs should explicitly not make ===
# NOT: sending out press releases (Marketing team)
# NOT: can I start this project (just do it - only teams need approval)
# NOT: can I join the project (just do it)
# NOT: can I give a talk/presentation about Sugar Labs at $occasion (just do it, but please share your stuff so others can remix it)
# NOT: can I add this feature to the code / what's going to be in the next release (Development team)
# NOT: design issues (Design team)
# NOT: can we install $foobar for our ticket tracker / wiki / etc? (Infrastructure team)
# NOT: first-level conflict resolution (only when public dialogue on mailing lists has failed should there be an appeal for ombudsperson/SLOBs to step in for a specific decision related to one of the decision-types we /can/ make)
# NOT: can I start this deployment (just do it)
# NOT: "I'm a member of the Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with $name, a volunteer at Sugar Labs"(so individuals can make statements on behalf of themselves and their organizations, but not on behalf of SL)
# your ideas here
=== How a SLOBs decision is requested===
Which of these are required? All can be optional.
# wiki: Add a link to http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meetings#Upcoming_Topics with the topic, containing the information specified below.
# list: Email iaep and cc the slobs list with the subject "SLOBs Topic: name-of-topic"
## OPTION: SLOB triager for that meeting replies with authoritative "this is on the agenda or not" to that mailing list thread (mailing list thread is the final word)
## OPTION: SLOBs triagers will attempt to reply to list with topic status once it's triaged, but the final word is the meeting minutes for the upcoming meeting.
# ticketing system: file a ticket under the 'slobs' component
Decision requests should include (select which ones from this list):
# Link to existing discussion thread(s) on public mailing list
# Brief (1-5 sentence) summary of each option to choose between
# Rationale for why this needs to escalate to SLOBs (it's one of the "this is a SLOBs decision" items, or justification why community discussion and consensus is not working)
# Complete this sentence: "If SLOBs does not make this decision..."
# others?
=== How a SLOBs decision request is triaged===
Three options for triage:
* wontfix - "not a SLOBs decision"
* wontfixnow - "you need to talk about this on the mailing list more, come back later"
* ok - "goes on the agenda and will be decided at the next meeting"
Who triages and how? Options:
# meeting chair triages (since they're preparing the agenda)
# meeting chair triages (since they're preparing the agenda) BUT a majority (4) of other SLOBs at the meeting or in iaep beforehand can override that triage and bring the topic up for discussion on the meeting anyway
# robert's rules: a motion has to be made and then seconded for a vote (triage happens during meeting, led by meeting chair)
# 4 SLOBs (a majority) have to +1 an item for a SLOBs decision (either at the meeting or on the agenda page beforehand), or it goes into wontfix
Possible additions:
# the agenda is purged each week - it does not automatically roll over into the next week's agenda, that must be done explicitly and manually each time.
# everything that isn't made into a motion is dropped from the agenda
=== How a SLOBs decision is made===
Once the board has agreed on making a decision on a particular issue, we need to define how such decision will be made. Some questions that would matter:
Voting medium:
# IRC
# wiki
Voting timeline:
# immediate in-meeting
## with absentees excluded (including this option for completeness)
## with absentees voting via email to the SLOBs list beforehand
## with absentees delegating/relaying vote to another SLOB who will be present
# voting window opens one week before meeting, closes in meeting
# voting window opens at meeting, closes one week after meeting
# substitute timeframes other than "one week" in above two options
Level of agreement:
Should all decisions require the same level of agreement? Maybe changing the rules require a stronger agreement such as unanimity or a greater quorum?
Voting system:
# unanimous consensus needed
# unanimous nondissent needed (either consensus or abstain)
# majority needed, no dissent (at least 4 yea, no nay)
# simple voting (more yeas than nays voting, period)
=== How a SLOBs decision is announced ===
# wiki
## iaep
## slobs
## meeting minutes
=== How a SLOBs decision is amended ===
Amendments are decisions, and are therefore requested and granted exactly the same way.
== IRC transcript ==
<pre>
15:16:20< mchua> #startmeeting
15:16:39< mchua> (no meetbot yet, but... I'll tail and sed and mail to list.)
15:16:44< mchua> Yep. Lemme pull that up.
15:16:58< tomeu> oh, the bot is on strike
15:16:58< tomeu> for some months now
15:17:10 * sdziallas looks around, wonders what kind of meeting is going on here.
15:18:17< mchua> tomeu: http://fpaste.org/qzZU/
15:18:56< mchua> sdziallas: we're coming up with a few draft sets of governance procedures for SLOBs, to be (hopefully) ratified at the next meeting so we have a clear notion of what the decision making process is for various things
15:18:58< tomeu> sdziallas: it's a surprise meeting ;)
15:19:10< sdziallas> mchua, tomeu: hiya :)
15:19:14< mchua> it's something tomeu and I offered to do at the last SLOBs meeting.
15:19:26< sdziallas> oh, that sounds interesting!
15:19:27< tomeu> hmm, I tihnk someone else offered me, but well...
15:19:45 * sdziallas didn't make it to the last meeting and hasn't gotten to read through the logs, yet.
15:19:51< sdziallas> but sounds actually pretty great!
15:20:27-!- CanoeBerry [n=Canoe@c-98-216-65-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
15:21:25 * mtd can't resist suggesting Robert's Rules of Order, since it won't slow things down much :)
15:21:27< tomeu> mchua: I have 40 minutes before a conf call
15:21:29 * mtd shuts up now.
15:22:01< mchua> tomeu: Okay. We can't get through that entire list in that time, so I'd propose we start with "What are the things requiring a SLOBs decision?"
15:22:10< mchua> brainstorm a list for that
15:22:17< tomeu> hmm
15:22:20< mchua> (mtd and sdziallas and others, you're more than welcome to join)
15:22:33< mchua> get an idea of the scope of things SLOBs might look at
15:22:46< tomeu> mchua: you mean which are appropriate subjects to present to SLOBs for an statement?
15:22:52< mchua> Yes.
15:22:56< sdziallas> mchua: I'm happy to jump in, might be a bit busy over here, though ;) ...*lurking*
15:23:04< mchua> Not that this would be a final list, but a strawman to be a rough idea
15:23:15< mchua> and then have SLOBs's first set of decisions be to go down that list and say yes/no.
15:23:17< mchua> to each.
15:23:43< mchua> 10m at most to brainstorm that list, and then the remainder of the time coming up with several variants of "What is the process by which a SLOBs decision is..."
15:23:54< mchua> {requested, made, announced, amended, etc}
15:24:00< tomeu> hmm
15:24:06< mchua> so that we can mix-and-match the best options together at the next meeting.
15:24:21 * mchua will post this log to iaep afterwards with a summary, since tomeu probably has to leave before she does
15:24:33< tomeu> mchua: anything seen as relevant for SLs missions?
15:24:40< tomeu> at the SLOBs discretion?
15:25:07< mchua> well, our mission is to "produce, distribute, and support the use of the Sugar learning platform"
15:25:09< mchua> which is *really* broad
15:25:29< mchua> and leaving it to SLOBs discretion is starting to not work as well as we scale up
15:25:42-!- walterbender [n=chatzill@18.85.49.106] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
15:26:02< mchua> what do we need to ask SLOBs about? what don't we? Most of it is "no, you don't have to ask," but this isn't very clear yet.
15:26:07< tomeu> mchua: ok, but are we going to find a concrete set of subjects that people will accept?
15:26:25< tomeu> ok, if we are brainstorming:
15:26:34< mchua> ------ BRAINSTORM START -------------
15:26:40< tomeu> - official statements required to interact with other organizations/individuals
15:26:59< mchua> - formal usage of the Sugar Labs trademark, and other trademarks/logos SL legally owns the rights to
15:27:22< tomeu> - clarifications on strategy, for others to be able to plan their work
15:27:50< mchua> - disbursement of funds that come from the SL treasury
15:27:58-!- FranXOphonie [n=FranXOph@208.111.82.68] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)]
15:28:38< mchua> - granting a project Official SL Project Status (which allows it to use the trademark, gives it a mailing list, other benefits we need to outline at some point)
15:28:56 * mchua will also start listing things that should NOT come through slobs (still in brainstorm mode)
15:29:05< mchua> NOT: sending out press releases (Marketing team)
15:29:13< mchua> NOT: can I start this project (just do it)
15:29:17< mchua> NOT: can I join the project (just do it)
15:29:48< mchua> NOT: can I give a talk/presentation about Sugar Labs at $occasion (just do it, but please share your stuff so others can remix it)
15:30:18< mchua> NOT: can I add this feature to the code / what's going to be in the next release (Development team)
15:30:27< mchua> NOT: design issues (Design team)
15:31:05< mchua> NOT: can we install $foobar for our ticket tracker / wiki / etc? (Infrastructure team)
15:31:08< tomeu> remove someone from a position such as maintainer, sysadmin, ml moderator, etc because of behavior against SLs mission
15:31:46-!- CanoeBerry__ is now known as CanoeBerry
15:32:02< tomeu> whenever you have a platform, you are going to be bugged about this things
15:32:09< tomeu> oops
15:32:20< tomeu> (that was for #sugar)
15:32:40< mchua> NOT: first-level conflict resolution (only when public dialogue on mailing lists has failed should there be an appeal for ombudsperson/SLOBs to step in for a specific decision related to one of the decision-types we /can/ make)
15:33:18< mchua> NOT: can I start this deployment (just do it)
15:33:49< tomeu> changes in the governance rules?
15:34:03< mchua> and amendments to the mission/vision statements
15:34:48< mchua> examples of official statements (from the first brainstorm on this list) would be "$FOO announces $BAR in partnership with Sugar Labs"
15:34:54< tomeu> mchua: btw, will you have time later today? I will be free from 16 UTC
15:35:13< mchua> anything that says something like "a Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with Sugar Labs"
15:35:28< tomeu> that's related to the trademark, right?
15:35:37< tomeu> would be something like licensing a trademark
15:35:40< mchua> tomeu: possibly; I'm not sure yet, today looks pretty busy
15:36:05< mchua> NOT: "I'm a member of the Sugar Labs project" or "in partnership with $name, a volunteer at Sugar Labs"
15:36:29< mchua> (so individuals can make statements on behalf of themselves and their organizations, but not on behalf of SL)
15:36:40< mchua> brainstorm timeout imminent. last thoughts?
15:36:53< mchua> in 5...
15:36:54< mchua> 4...
15:36:55< mchua> 3...
15:36:57< mchua> 2..
15:36:58< mchua> 1...
15:37:03< mchua> ------------ BRAINSTORM END ---------
15:37:14< mchua> Ok, that's a pretty good-lookin' list.
15:37:15-!- FranXOphonie [n=FranXOph@208.111.82.68] has joined #sugar-meeting
15:37:34< mchua> tomeu: how much time do you have now?
15:37:46< mchua> we've got 4 things to make options for
15:37:55< mchua> 1. how SLOBs decisions are requested
15:38:05< mchua> 2. made (Including special cases like abstains and absentees.)
15:38:09< mchua> 3. announced
15:38:10< mchua> 4. amended
15:38:17< mchua> some of these are obviously easier than others ;)
15:38:47< mchua> #topic How SLOBs decisions are requested
15:38:48< tomeu> mchua: 20 mins
15:39:16< mchua> Option 1: add to the wiki page of the next SLOBs agenda (have template)
15:39:18< tomeu> just send email to IAEP?
15:39:35< mchua> Option 3: add to agenda page /and/ send email to IAEP
15:40:18< mchua> Also, proposal to explicitly state that you don't have to be present at the SLOBs meeting
15:40:25< mchua> to request a decision
15:40:37< mchua> ...I think I'm done with this one... tomeu?
15:41:08< tomeu> mchua: I guess we can just propose these options to slobs?
15:41:14< mchua> Yep, that's the idea.
15:41:28< mchua> We set out a couple options and then decide as a group, but we have concrete proposals to choose from.
15:41:31< tomeu> I personally prefer to do as much as possible first on the ml
15:41:38 * mchua nods
15:41:39< tomeu> instead of starting to discuss on the meeting
15:41:56< mchua> yeah, I'm going to post logs (with summaries of the various options) on the wiki and ping IAEP once you have to run
15:42:00< tomeu> so adding to the agenda could be done later, as a consequence of the discussion ensued
15:42:14< mchua> requirement for posting on agenda: link to mailing list discussion
15:42:57< tomeu> ok, let's move to the next point/
15:42:58< tomeu> ?
15:43:00< tomeu> is it voting?
15:43:05< mchua> #topic how SLOBs decisions are made
15:43:55< mchua> proposal: first, we decide whether an issue is wontfix, wontfixnow, not-SLOBs, or SLOBs-decision
15:44:07< mchua> whoops, wontfix == not-SLOBs
15:44:25< mchua> wontfixnow == "you need to talk about this on the mailing list more, come back later"
15:44:36< mchua> (so that's really 3 possible states)
15:44:48< mchua> and SLOBs-decisions are just yes/no
15:45:02< tomeu> ok
15:45:22< mchua> for that initial triage, we have a couple options
15:45:59< mchua> * that week's meeting chair triages (since they're preparing the agenda) BUT a majority (4) of other SLOBs can override that triage and bring the topic up for discussion on the meeting anyway
15:46:48< mchua> * robert's rules: a motion has to be made and then seconded for a vote
15:47:04< mchua> (with the implication that everything that isn't made into a motion is dropped from the agenda)
15:47:09< mchua> (and the agenda purged each week)
15:47:17< mchua> * others?
15:47:30 * mchua wants to do some sort of regular purge to make sure only active issues come up, and that the list stays trimmed and very very small
15:47:42< mchua> (but that's my personal preference for extremely minimal governance)
15:48:18< tomeu> as can bee seen here, action items can accumulate as well: http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoardPublic/Minutes/20090917
15:48:23 * mchua nods, grins
15:48:47-!- edmcnierney_away is now known as edmcnierney
15:49:28< mchua> another option: 4 SLOBs (a majority) have to +1 an item for a SLOBs decision (either at the meeting or on the agenda page beforehand), or it goes into wontfix
15:49:31< mchua> (but can be brought up again later)
15:49:46< mchua> aaanyway, once something is in "yes, this is a SLOBs decision" state, what do we do?
15:49:59< mchua> option 1: unanimous consensus needed
15:50:08< mchua> option 2: unanimous nondissent needed (either consensus or abstain)
15:50:23< mchua> option 3: majority needed, no dissent (at least 4 yea, no nay)
15:50:42< mchua> option 4: simple voting (more yeas than nays)
15:51:32< mchua> (I'm assuming that all issues being Decided have already had extended mailing list discussions, so it's really the decision and not the discussion that needs to happen at these meetings.)
15:51:52< tomeu> option 4 could have a quorum
15:52:17-!- walterbender [n=chatzill@18.85.49.106] has joined #sugar-meeting
15:52:43< tomeu> mchua: ok, need to stop, hope to be back in 1 hour, approx.
15:52:44< mchua> tomeu: option 4 with quorum is the same as option 3
15:53:06< mchua> tomeu: Ok. I'm going to put these on a wiki page and email iaep and we can resume when we're both back
15:53:10< mchua> #endmeeting
</pre>