[ogb-discuss] Advocacy Community Proposal

[Stephen Hahn]

* Glynn Foster <Glynn.Foster at sun.com> [2007-05-21 21:27]:
> 
> 
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Alan Coopersmith writes:
> >> Glynn Foster wrote:
> >>> 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?
> > 
> > I'd be ok with that.  I think having a lower overhead route for
> > non-controversial matters makes sense.  In this particular case, I
> > don't see anything that's problematic about the community
> > consolidation, so I think it's a fairly good idea to have an email
> > vote.
> 
> Sounds good to me - I agree with Jim's proposal, and very much like to see it
> being implemented (with Ben's outstanding suggestions included).

  Is it possible to schedule a short IRC session to have a meeting?
  (Writing with a hint of apprehension at having to assist in the
  mustering of an affirmative majority for an amendment so soon--I guess
  I was hoping that a chunk of critical amendments would be assembled
  before a vote.)

  - Stephen

-- 
sch at sun.com  http://blogs.sun.com/sch/