Plocher> ... the "must be unanimous" part ... dooms such discussions Plocher> to being decided by a minority rather than a majority...
Agreed; unanimity should only be required for special circumstances, not general ones; otherwise, logic is turned on its head and it is difficult to get anything done. Following the IETF credo, I believe "rough consensus" is more appropriate. Also, within reason, bending the letter of the law but conforming to the spirit is entirely reasonable IMO, as laws are generally written to right past wrongs rather than to address all possible future wrongs. Constitutions are designed to establish a framework by which communities can be governed, but I suggest that this particularly community is sufficiently new that bold experimentation is called for rather than strict legalism. As for the mechanism(s) by which agreements are reached, flexibility is called for IMO, and in 2008 using e-mail is perfectly reasonable, as long as all decisions are made in public. I also agree with Simon's point about requiring a response from every OGB member, to be sure that things do not get overlooked by accident. -- John http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck
