Glynn Foster wrote:
>
> 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.
Calling a meeting this week to vote on it would progress this case.
Long term, do we want to propose a constitutional amendment to make
the e-mail decision making system more like what we originally thought
it was than the current "100% affirmative votes required" system?
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
