Derek Cicero wrote: > 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. >
Please file constitutional amendments in the Bugzilla @ defect.opensolaris.org in the OGB product against the 'constitution' component. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
