On Apr 17, 2009, at 00:50, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> > wrote: >> >> I therefore request that the OGB consider its strategy for >> replacing the >> constitution with one more suited to the current needs of the >> community as a >> matter of priority. I note it's not even on the agenda list at >> present, let >> alone the agenda. > > Time to start a new thread. Donning flameproof clothing...
Thanks, Peter. I'd offer you mine but it's too blackened already. > > > There are two fundamental questions here: *what*, and *how*. > > Ignoring the *what* part briefly, the *how* could, for example, be: > > 1. Decide to leave well alone and revisit in a repeat poll in 2010 > > 2. Push forward aggressively and get a new poll in place straight > away. > > 3. Create a subcommittee and direct them to do the job (which may > be done in the manner of 1 or 2). > > It's clear to me that there are differences of opinion amongst the > current OGB members. OK, that's life. We still have to decide > what to do, because sitting back and doing nothing isn't an option; > nor is letting the question drag on endlessly. > > (The aim of option 3 is not that the subcommittee decides the how, or > even the what, but that it does the legwork.) I'd vote for 2, executed by 3, where "straight away" probably means "September". > > > So, pick a number. > > As for the *what*, again I see some options: > > 1. No change > > 2. Tweak the current constitution to fix the more obvious problems > > 3. Re-run with the new draft as is. > > 4. Tweak the new draft in the light of concerns that have been raised. > > 5. Start over and rewrite from scratch. > > Again, pick a number. Definitely 4. S.
