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!)
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
>
