[core-contrib-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Board Election 2009/Change Constitution results

[Simon Phipps]

On Mar 26, 2009, at 09:21, Peter Tribble wrote:

> The rule book is the constitution. It clearly states that changing the
> constitution
> requires an affirmative majority of Members. That wasn't achieved,  
> so it's clear
> that the constitutional change wasn't approved.

Dennis' point - which I agree with - is that although the rules say  
exactly what you point out, the fact that such a huge number of the  
people interested in governance voted for a change yet could not enact  
it is still significant and indicates those rules are broken. We  
already knew that, which is why the outgoing OGB was trying to change  
them (and despite vilification by a few folk it's not just me by the  
way - Jim wrote the new constitution and the whole OGB enhanced and  
endorsed it).

I believe the OGB needs to discuss how to proceed since it's clearly  
unsatisfactory to have so many votes in favour of change frustrated by  
a very short miss on the quorum. It's just as wrong to carry on with a  
constitution that can't be followed as it would be arbitrarily  
overturn the rules to replace it.

I'd thus suggest we discuss at the OGB meeting a plan something like  
this:
*  Revise the Charter to include a mission statement and to housekeep  
some clauses that don't seem to be appropriate any more.
*  Revise the Constitution one more time to clarify the issues raised
*  Run a Special Election in late May to ratify the Constitution, and  
make it very clear what the voting rules are
*  Provide those unable to vote for whatever reason with a secondary  
avenue to record a ballot.

S.