Alan Coopersmith writes: > Glynn Foster wrote: > > 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?
I'd be ok with that. I think having a lower overhead route for non-controversial matters makes sense. In this particular case, I don't see anything that's problematic about the community consolidation, so I think it's a fairly good idea to have an email vote. I wouldn't mind if someone said "I'm not necessarily opposed, but I insist on a voice vote or 100% email vote to proceed" as a process matter, but I don't think it should need to be the default. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
