James Carlson wrote: > 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.
Sounds good to me - I agree with Jim's proposal, and very much like to see it being implemented (with Ben's outstanding suggestions included). Glynn
