[ogb-discuss] ENOQUORUM responses?

[Bonnie Corwin]

Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> My understanding is that if you signed in, and announced yourself, you 
> were counted.
> 
> Nobody can be expected to remain on any IRC channel for several days 
> continuously.
> 
> FWIW, I believe that e-mail explaining the meeting, and why folks needed 
> to attend, was sent to all of the core contributors.  I do believe that 
> failure to participate is mostly due to apathy on the part of said 
> CC's.  (No, I've not taken a poll -- but if I could *poll* those folks 
> who didn't participate, then I'd probably be able to get them to 
> participate!)

Well, maybe I'm dense, but I received that email and not much was clear. 
to me.  I did get that a quorum was needed which is why I joined.

But there was no agenda.  And it didn't say the 'meeting' would be 
continuous over multiple days so that I could/should join at any time 
during some time span.

Assuming that I'm not an idiot, perhaps others didn't find the 
information clear either.

What's the harm in trying a very specific email asking people for 
specific action by a certain day/time?  If nothing happens, then perhaps 
we can assume apathy.  At the moment, I'm not ready to concede that that 
is the whole problem.

Bonnie

> 
> I know a *lot* of CC's were given out by a few groups without 
> explanation or acceptance of the responsibilities that this imparts.  
> (And in some cases where they were, the explanation may not be well 
> understood by the folks accepting.   There are a number of folks here 
> who do not claim English as their mother tongue.)
> 
>    -- Garrett
> 
> Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>> 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
>>
>