[ogb-discuss] Advocacy Community Proposal

[Stephen Lau]

Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Glynn Foster wrote:
>>
>> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>>>> Does a lack of OGB response mean this proposal is invalid? If so, I'd
>>>> like to know specifically so I can move in another direction to solve
>>>> the issues I face with the UG Community.
>>> The proposal seems fine, but we have to hold a meeting to actually vote
>>> on it, since we can't hold e-mail votes while Steve is absent.
>>
>> This is silly - it's stopping progress being made, we need to change 
>> that in my
>> opinion. While I agree we shouldn't come to a decision if the majority 
>> of OGB
>> members are away from mail or there are enough open issues that need 
>> answering,
>> but I'm not sure I see we have that problem with this proposal right now.
> 
> Calling a meeting this week to vote on it would progress this case.
> 
> Long term, do we want to propose a constitutional amendment to make
> the e-mail decision making system more like what we originally thought
> it was than the current "100% affirmative votes required" system?
> 

Yes.  It's silly that I was the blocking factor on this.  Apologies to 
the marketing/user groups communities.

-steve

-- 
stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development