On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 22:42, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> >>> On Apr 22, 2009, at 17:57, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: >>> >>>>> Either that, or we may need to (in the long-term) separate the >>>>> governance aspects of the individuals CGs and the community. >>>> That was handled by the "new" constitution, but that didn't pass. :S >>> >>> Have faith. It will, if we facilitate. I'd rather work to that goal than >>> build patches on repairs on carbuncles on the old constitution :-) >> >> Hi Simon - >> >> I'm not sure if you understand my intent - and that's to make people >> aware that their votes are needed. This, in itself, I think will be >> a big help for getting the constitution passed. This is merely a policy >> that I think will be very easy to enact until the new constitution is >> up for election again. > > No, I got that and I realise I forgot to be supportive of it, apologies. I'm > not sure I think the move will have much effect but I'm happy to try it.
Thanks! > But I don't agree with all the talk I hear from a number of people about > leaving everything until 2010 or indefinitely, and your comment appeared to > reflect it. The longer we put off adopting a revised governance the more we > will make changes to fit in with the old one. That is a separate issue. Regardless of *when* we hold another election, we will hold one and we will need to stick to the rules of the current election at least until then. I believe this policy will help insure those taking Core Contributor grants understand their responsibilities (as I don't think this is necessarily communicated in all communities when these grants are being given, typically to honor somebody's contributions) Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
