On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> wrote: > > However, it's completely appropriate for the community to expect that every > collective is using criteria that set an equivalent benchmark for > "substantial" everywhere. It's the OGB's responsibility to police that, and > to have the authority to withhold Electorate status from a collective should > it set the line too low. Right now I believe section 1.4 has it about right > in "weight"and if any correction is needed it is in wording, not in the > shape of the overall process.
Not at all. It's expected that each collective manages its own affairs and awards contributor status to fit its own needs; I would expect those criteria to vary widely, and they should be allowed to. I've understood that a fundamental principle of the new constitution was to separate community and collective governance. Are you saying that we should abandon that principle? If so, that's a major change in direction that needs to be thoroughly discussed. The fundamental problem with getting collectives to award electoral rights based on their local contributorship is that it overloads roles in incompatible contexts, and we've spent a lot of time ensuring that that doesn't happen. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
