Keith M Wesolowski writes: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Liane Praza wrote: > > > I had been reading into this discussion that this state was not a > > desirable one. That communities who hadn't appointed a faciliator > > were (minorly) delinquent. > > > > If that reading was wrong and the "no appointed facilitator" state > > is not just OK, but explicitly endorsed as a community operational > > model by the OGB, then cool. My apologies for the misunderstanding. > > I don't think we're explicitly endorsing it; your reading sounds about > right. At the same time, speaking only for myself as always, the > "DOWN WITH BUREAUCRACY!" picketers outside my apartment have become > tiresome in their vigor, volume, and steadfast refusal to read or > adhere to the terms of the Constitution they themselves approved. My > attitude is now similar to the parent's who's given up on his > tantrum-throwing 2-year-old; if he wants candy, he get it as quickly > as possible so he shuts up, and I find myself secretly hoping he ends > up a diabetic.
Hey. No picketing was involved. I'd prefer if you didn't paint my simple question with a "steadfast refusal to read or adhere to the terms of the Constitution" brush. My emails weren't intended to convey vigor or volume. Just a small suggestion which I'll now take as rejected. I'll work to bring the SMF community into compliance. I note that the GNU Solaris community was supposed to be dissolved (as previously discussed by the OGB and the core members of that community), but still seems to be appearing in the communities list. I will not be attempting to bring it into compliance. liane
