On Apr 17, 2009, at 01:21, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > (because I believe some of the concerns > last time around was that there was not enough time to review/ > integrate > comments before the election, so i think we'd really want about 4-5 > weeks for comments to make this successful)
You'll always get that - any concerns of that sort were IMO misplaced in this case. The whole document was created in the open, and input was sought multiple times. People who wanted to block it appeared to consciously wait until after the update deadline had closed to oppose it (and in mostly non-specific ways). I think it's likely that will happen again whatever we do. > but I would be curious to learn more > of the specifics from the "no" voters as well as why we had a lack > of CCs turn up to the election. There were so few "no" voters we could ask them individually if we knew who they were :-). As to the low turn-out (actually pretty high by the general metrics of which I am aware), I really believe it was the usual apathy that faces all organisations dedicated to doing real stuff and for whom this sort of bureacracy appears a waste of time. It just wasn't controversial enough to arouse a response... > 4 may work if the returning members are willing to let the document > really change I am happy to make any changes that make sense, and was throughout the process last time. Just not after the document is frozen for voting :-) S. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2494 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20090417/7b59312b/attachment.bin>
