* Glynn Foster <Glynn.Foster at sun.com> [2007-05-21 21:27]: > > > 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).
Is it possible to schedule a short IRC session to have a meeting? (Writing with a hint of apprehension at having to assist in the mustering of an affirmative majority for an amendment so soon--I guess I was hoping that a chunk of critical amendments would be assembled before a vote.) - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
