I would suggest a simpler solution.
Everyone who "voted" has demonstrated at least some (minimal) community
involvement. Therefore disenfranchising them doesn't work. Their Core
Contributor status should stand as is.
Those remaining people, who didn't participate in elections, certainly
did not have any impact on the outcome of said elections (except perhaps
to lower the margin by which the constitution passed... but it did pass,
so that's good enough for me.)
So, why not ask the remaining individuals to _confirm_ their status as
Core Contributors. Lack of a reply, or a reply in the negative, would
effectively serve as voluntarily declining to participate. (This allows
for the folks who did not vote out of some kind of protest against the
process, or due to other reasons, to still be part of the process...
although it does have the bad side effect of those individuals losing
their anonymity, to at least whoever sends out the mail messages.)
So, can we get the list of folks who didn't vote? Is this idea even
"technically" feasible? (I guess that lack of a registered ssh key
would be a good indicator.)
As far as ordinary Contributors, I'm not sure there is any point in
trying to clean the list up... the status doesn't really confer any
particular privileges as far as I can see.
-- Garrett
Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:45:55AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe you should stop being an arrogant prick about your interpretations
>>> of the constitution and simply ask what it means. I am still on this
>>>
>> I'm not going to replay the Protestant Reformation on a governance
>> mailing list. The Constititon is written in plain English; we don't
>> need priests to interpret it for us. If you intended this section to
>> mean that the alternative to wholesale approval is mass resignation,
>> why isn't that what's written? I don't doubt your word - I'm sure you
>> really meant the Constitution to be a contract and this approval to
>> close it. But that's not what you wrote, and the voters had only the
>> document, not the notes you kept in your mental margins.
>>
>
>
> The plain english is clear enough to me; even though it is
> legalese. (And plain english i snot legalese, nor vice versa but
> still).
>
> It says that our first order of business is to approve; so we
> have no choice in the matter. TO not approve causes a failed bootstrap; it
> does not require us to resign; but it makes the election null and void.
>
> Casper
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>
