On 31/03/2009, at 9:16 AM, Michelle Olson wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On Mar 30, 2009, at 19:21, Michelle Olson wrote: >> >>> It is a long process to update the Constitution (or any document >>> for that matter), so May seems unreasonable. >> >> What further changes do you believe are needed for the >> Constitution? Until I hear a concrete answer to that question that >> implies extensive work, I think it's perfectly reasonable to >> imagine it's possible to set goals in the near-term. >> >> S. >> > --aside: It is generally not a good practice to snip the content of > a longer email and respond only to a singular phrase on a discussion > list.-- > > The extensive work to be done isn't in the discrete changes to the > document, it is in driving agreement on the concepts and direction > and real-world use of the document going forward.
I'm not sure I agree. My interpretation was that while there was a small group who disagreed with the charter being out of whack with the proposed constitution (and I agree we should go to them and ask why and what we can do to help change their minds), the reason why it didn't pass is because we have a lazy electorate. Simple. The fact that the new site infrastructure is going to use the concepts from the proposed constitution just makes us look funny again. > Because the new site infrastructure has built-out those concepts Jim > drafted in the 2009 Constitution, we have an excellent way forward > to test the concepts in the document with the real software this > year. I suggest we map the sections of Jim's document to the actual > functionality and run extensive tests as a first step. We must give > everyone time to test and review and feedback and treat the feedback > with respect for the time that it requires. That's all well and good assuming you get feedback. I think you can safely expect the list to go quiet again over the next couple of months. Quite frankly, governance isn't a very interesting topic - people generally prefer doing. Glynn
