7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: + + + + + Line 22:
Line 27: − + Line 103:
Line 108: + + + + + + Line 135:
Line 146: + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 149:
Line 172: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Sugar Labs/Governance (view source)
Revision as of 10:25, 5 October 2009
, 10:25, 5 October 2009→Membership: fix typo + clarify
{{TOCright}}
==DRAFT?==
Maybe time to remove "DRAFT" from the page?
==Other examples==
==Other examples==
:I've moved some of the details to subpages. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
:I've moved some of the details to subpages. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
== Decision Panels ==
== [[Decision panels]] ==
This seems to be the most controversial topic:
This seems to be the most controversial topic:
--Jim
--Jim
'''Feedback and views:'''
Ben has identified some very good points about not giving power to those who are seeking it (.. and thus likely to abuse it). However, I agree with Jim that the Board cannot be relegated to do secretarial work. The process of selecting board members should be transparent, and as democratic as possible, but once in place it should be trusted to make substantial decisions - of course with the checks and balances (like the referendum on controversial issues.) I like the point Jim makes about accountability. I think the Board should have some dedicated full time support staff to help with the routine work. Admitted that in such voluntary-community projects paying for services is an issue but at the same time we should not be utilizing high powered resources for something that can be done by a less experienced person who is willing to do it as a job but not exciting enough to volunteer for.
--Tariq
== Membership ==
== Membership ==
--Mako
--Mako
To be a truly community based and perhaps a good 501c3 NonProfit,
it has to serve the public good, and including those community members
that are affected (i.e. users of the software, kids, teachers,
family members, community members, not just developers),
or underserved by the software/ product (those who don't get it,
i.e. people without machines that will boot from USB/ CDR,
and/or just learning what Sugar and SugarLabs/ OLPC is about),
as inclusion makes a better product and
better serves the public good.
[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 14:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
== Other open details ==
== Other open details ==
* limits on board membership by employer
* limits on board membership by employer
* how money is disbursed.
* how money is disbursed.
* how committees dissolve/end when they're no longer needed.
== feedback from SFC ==
;Note: Is this requirement too stringent to maintain? Consider making the required meeting frequency lower and say instead: The Oversight Board shall meet at least quarterly/monthly to discuss various topics pertaining to the regular activities of the Sugar Labs Project and Sugar. The Oversight Board expects to meet twice per month.
::Seems to make sense. Quarterly is probably a good steady-state to aim for.
;Note: Should the oversight board be able review/ratify the decision? The way this section is written now, the people elected by the members are not able to actively participate in the decision-making process. Why not allow the board to participate or at least ratify the final decision?
::A ratification process seems reasonable, especially in light of having a mechanism (below) to override the decision.
;Note: should the advisory board be allowed to listen in (perhaps but not participate in) the board meetings or otherwise be allowed to elect a representative for participation (voting or nonvoting) in the Oversight Board meetings? Should they have their own schedule/procedure for meetings?
::Seems to make sense. And their input would be of value.
;Note: as with the advisory committee, should we provide some formal way for the SIGs to provide input? For example, SIGs could have representation on the advisory committee or listen in on board meetings.
::Ditto.
;Note: is there an officially list already? Who gets to add contributors and are they ever removed? Is the Membership and Election Committee another committee of the Oversight Board without any voting members from the OB?
::We need to bootstrap this. It seems a natural place to start is with contributors to Sugar, activity developers, and people active in the wiki and lists.
;Note: can the membership override the Oversight Board under certain circumstance? For example, a 75% vote of all of the members?
::Seems to go hand-in-hand with the idea of the OB ratification process.