Plocher> 3) We choose to move ahead anyways - "if the rules get in the way Plocher> of doing what is right, do what is right, and fix the rules later." Plocher> Treat the election as valid, put the new board in place, and continue Plocher> on, with a bunch of work to do.
Plocher> I assert that, if we don't get to quorum, choice 3 is the only viable Plocher> one for us as a community. As it stands now, we have ~80 people Plocher> who care enough about the community to actually participate in its Plocher> operation. This implies we have a community structure that is out Plocher> of whack with the community itself, and the first thing the new OGB Plocher> (along with the 80 or so members who have indicated that they wish to Plocher> be involved) needs to do is figure out a better structure, play test Plocher> it for a year, adjust things as needed, write down what works, and Plocher> forge *that* document into a constitution to be voted upon next year. General agreement. I think the current quorum rule, though sort of OK in theory, is a little silly in practice. Something more sensible to me would be "1/3 of the CCs needs to 'sign in', then once we have a quorum, we can 'disband' and have our election", rather than having to have 1/3 of the CCs all there at once. But fundamentally I agree with you that finding something that works in practice is more important than trying to follow to the letter a nascent process which still clearly has several kinks to be worked out. -- John http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck
