[ogb-discuss] ENOQUORUM responses?

[Mark J. Nelson]

> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> 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!)

Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> 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.


I would go further than that.  The lack of agenda, and of any useful, 
structured, conversation in #opensolaris-meeting, has put me off. The idea 
that my signing in and identifying myself somehow lends legitimacy or 
quorum bothers me.  Because I have not participated.

I'm happy to participate.  I'll do background reading.  I'll offer 
opinions, if and when appropriate.  I'll attend a meeting.  But calling an 
IRC channel "#opensolaris-meeting" does not qualify it as such.

If Plocher is right, and quorum is badly defined, then we need to fix the 
definition of quorum.

If Garrett is right, and quorum is appropriately defined, but CC grants 
have run amok, then we need to fix the grant situation.

In either case, we need to identify and address the real problem.

Encouraging members of the community to jump through this hoop is silly, 
obfuscates the real problem, and takes resources that could be better 
applied towards finding a real solution.

--Mark