Glynn Foster wrote: > > 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. >
Wow, that is really washing your hands of responsibility, Glynn. > The fact that the new site infrastructure is going to use the concepts > from the proposed constitution just makes us look funny again. I see it as an opportunity to test both and end up with two things that agree. But it isn't instant, it will take a bit more time. > >> 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. I generally create a lot of (hopefully useful) conversation wherever I go on the opensolaris lists, so I do assume that I'll get feedback. If I don't get feedback, I have failed and I won't blame others for being lazy. Feeding back is doing and if you incorporate feedback from others, it becomes very interesting. -Michelle > > > Glynn
