Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> Does a lack of OGB response mean this proposal is invalid? If so, I'd >> like to know specifically so I can move in another direction to solve >> the issues I face with the UG Community. > > The proposal seems fine, but we have to hold a meeting to actually vote > on it, since we can't hold e-mail votes while Steve is absent.
This is silly - it's stopping progress being made, we need to change that in my opinion. While I agree we shouldn't come to a decision if the majority of OGB members are away from mail or there are enough open issues that need answering, but I'm not sure I see we have that problem with this proposal right now. Glynn
