John Sonnenschein wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> wrote: >> On Feb 21, 2008, at 21:38, John Sonnenschein wrote: >> >> > I would still like this item to be placed on the ballot to lay the >> > item to rest so that we can all move on without feeling slighted. >> >> >> I don't believe the Constitution has any concept of "measures on the >> ballot" like this - the OGB makes these sorts of decisions. You may >> wish to propose a constitutional amendment to make it possible. > > a non-binding plebiscite ought not require constitutional amendments. > > It is a statement of will by the OpenSolaris community. The entire > community, not just loud-mouths such as myself and the others whose > names are spattered in CC: fields all over these discussions. > > Honestly, I really don't understand why this ballot item is being > fought so hard against by the Indiana supporters. Is it perhaps > because they don't believe that the community wants them to be the > official distribution and they are afraid of exposing this to be the > case? Because the other option is that the measure passes, and we can > all shut up and move forward, every party being satisfied that they > get their wishes fulfilled in some form.
I'm not sure who is fighting against you (I am not). I think there is some disagreement as to whether or not this will help, but in any event it sounds like it's up to the OGB to decide to add this measure, which seems reasonable. I do agree that there should be a way, in general, to propose measures to the OGB for inclusion on the ballot. Derek > > -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division
