On Apr 18, 2009, at 00:51, Rich Teer wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, John Plocher wrote: > >> I'd really like to just "get this done", which implies #2, but I fear >> the voter apathy for a special election will mean E_NO_QUORUM or >> worse, E_NO_SUPERMAJORITY. In that case, waiting until 2010 would >> have been (in hindsight) a better choice. E_NO_CRYSTAL_BALL....
I can't help thinking we're stuck with the voter apathy whatever happens. We just have to get the vote past the finish line and I'm not clear why waiting a year makes that easier. In the mean time we either have to work to - or ignore - the existing document. > Perhaps something that might address that is voting on the changes > piecemeal, > rather than all-or-nothing? But I agree that changing the Charter > first > might be a good idea. I think we can make some charter changes pretty easily - my view is the only thing needed is an explicit vision statement if we adjust the language about how the OGB is there to interact with non-individuals. I'd also like to put a general "vision statement" back in the draft, I think we would've done both anyway if it had been raised before the freeze. I don't think we can make changes piecemeal. The revision is of necessity too big for that - every line would be a red-line. S.
