[ogb-discuss] ENOQUORUM responses?

[Bonnie Corwin]

Personally, I think Gavin summed up the problem and a possible solution 
well.  It's not clear that the current situation has anything to do with 
lack of interest in the community or governance.

When email first came out about the meeting, the subject of the meeting 
was not clear and there was no agenda.

I joined shortly after it initially started.  And I watched a lot of 
messages about proposed amendments and about nothing in particular.

I left about about an hour and a half still having no idea what we were 
trying to accomplish.

I don't know if I was 'counted' while there.

If we want to meet this quorum requirement we should do as Gavin 
suggested: send specific email to the community telling them why their 
short participation in this IRC meeting is needed.  And provide 
specifics about by when people need to be in the 'meeting'.  And see 
what happens.

Bonnie

Mike Kupfer wrote:
>>>>>> "GD" == Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at opensolaris.org> writes:
> 
> GD> I think the time has come to draft a constitution amendment limiting
> GD> the number of CC's that each CG can nominate, thereby ensuring that
> GD> no one CG (or small group of CGs) can effectively stymie the
> GD> governance process.
> 
> If the problem is non-participation, I'd rather deal with that
> directly (e.g., require some minimum level of participation to maintain
> CC status).  
> 
> Limiting CC nominations would be more appropriate for dealing with other
> issues, such as concerns that certain community groups have undue
> influence.  But of course this begs the question of how one determines
> the appropriate level of influence and how to quantify it.
> 
> And as Justin pointed out, it'd be helpful if we better understood why
> core contributors aren't participating.  I suppose it could just be
> logistical (people are out of town, they didn't realize they need to
> show up, they're not comfortable with IRC, etc.).  I suspect it's more a
> matter of not being interested in community-wide governance (as opposed
> to governance in the technical area that they work in).  If that's the
> case, then more fundamental changes to the constitution may be needed.
> 
> mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss