Difference between revisions of "Oversight Board/Decisions"

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This page (still incomplete) is intended to be a one-stop place for reviewing all of the Sugar Labs oversight board (SLOB) actions and decisions.
 
This page (still incomplete) is intended to be a one-stop place for reviewing all of the Sugar Labs oversight board (SLOB) actions and decisions.
 +
 
2016-03-04
 
2016-03-04
;AGREED: 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: 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: 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).
 
;AGREED: 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).
  

Revision as of 14:21, 4 March 2016

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

2016-03-04

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

2015-12-17

AGREED
to pay Devin Ulibarri $500 for help organize and run the Turtle workshop in Bangkok.

2015-10-12

AGREED
Apply to GCI

2015-09-14

AGREED
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
via email to add Samson Goody to the Membership Committee (DONE)

2015-05-04

AGREED
to share survey results with community (DONE)
ACTION
Gonzalo to post results (DONE)
ACTION
Gonzalo to write to each of the respondents
AGREED
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
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

2014-10-07

ACTION
Recruit mentors for GCI
ACTION
Recruit candidates for oversight board

2014-07-08

AGREED
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
to Gonzalo and Manuq's proposal for Background Image Contest

2013-11-04

AGREED
Luke to run election for oversight board again
AGREED
to give cjl discretion over the i18n funds in the Trip Advisor grant

2013-10-18

AGREED
we would apply again to Google Code In

2013-03-21

AGREED
the next release will be Sugar 1.0

2013-02-25

AGREED
to establish a category for Sugar Labs advisors/educators/friends
ACTION
Claudia and Walter will meet to start planning Turtle Art Day
AGREED
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
to modify the Trademark and Local Labs pages in the wiki (See TM Policy and Local Labs Policy)

2012-05-03

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

2011-12-02

AGREED
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
to keep the GSoC 2010 mentor funds as our general funds.

2011-08-05

AGREED
to award Sugar participation certificates (See Certificate Program).
AGREED
to give North Dakota State University authority to establish a local Sugar Lab.

2011-06-09

AGREED
we endorse Free Softeware as defined here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

2011-05-08

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

2011-02-10

AGREED
SL endorses the idea that community members have kids: means more Sugar hackers in the future !!
AGREED
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
Oversight_Board/Project_Motion
AGREED
SL would like to acknowledge and celebrate the marriage of acaire11 and icarito : the first Sugar marriage!!!

2010-12-01

AGREED
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
The default time/day of the week for SLOBs meetings will be Thursdays at 15:00 EST (20:00 UTC)
AGREED
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
We, the SLOB, acknowledge and praise the efforts of the release team for bringing us 0.90!!

2010-05-07

AGREED
to a Trademark policy.

2010-03-05

AGREED
(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
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
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
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
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
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
SL is and should be a GNU/Linux distributor.
AGREED
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
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
when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to SLOBs.

2009-11-20

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

2009-09-25

AGREED
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
The Oversight Board acknowledged and celebrated the great job Simon has been doing on managing the 0.82 release.

2009-07-18

AGREED
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
There was consensus that Walter would put together a strawman election process based upon the Selectricity tool. We are targeting an August election.
AGREED
There was consensus that we begin with just Oversight and Members committees.
AGREED
We agreed for the need to solicit more feedback in the wiki for the design direction being proposed by Luca.
AGREED
We agreed that further discussions with the SFLA about the merits of trademark protection is needed.
AGREED
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
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.