Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Dennis Clarke <dclarke at blastwave.org> wrote:
>
>   
>>>> With a 6 to 1 majority voting yes for the change, it does seem a little
>>>> odd that we were looking for a greater than 50% of all possible voters.
>>>>         
>>> That's not different from how other referenda are decided.
>>>
>>> The best way to do it is to require a certain percentage of the electorate
>>> to vote for or against a particular item.
>>>       
>> I disagree.
>>
>> A fundamental concept in the democratic process is the "vote" which allows
>> the member of a given body or organization to express their opinion upon
>> some governing subset. That subset ( elected officials :
>> OGB/Congress/Political Party ) may then choose to ignore the "vote" if it
>> is deemed to be unclear or not representative of the entire population.
>>     
>
> Dennis, you seem to forget that there are voting rules that require 2/3 of all
> people with voting permission to vote in favor of something.
>
> This is usually the case when you like to change the constitution and this 
> was 
> not reached in our case.
>   

+1.  I think changing the constitution is "hard" for a reason.  While we 
might be disappointed that the new constitution was not approved, we can 
always try again next year, or hold a special election to try again in a 
month or two.

Btw, this is one of the reasons why I believe the bar for Core 
Contributor is set to low by many groups.  Part of accepting Core 
Contributor should indicate a willingness to represent your group's 
goals in the context of the larger OpenSolaris community -- and that 
includes participating in the elections.

I'd love to see a solution where CC's that don't vote have their names 
given to the CC's in the community that voted for them, so that those 
CC's could have that information at hand when deciding whether or not to 
renew CC grants.   (Perhaps a future amendment can call into question 
the existence of groups who don't have at least one CC that votes in the 
general elections.... although I can see some problematic issues with that.)

    -- Garrett


Reply via email to