On 6/02/2009, at 2:16 AM, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Ben Rockwood wrote: >> Secondly, I personally believe the tone of the document is far too >> informal. It reads more like a README than a constitution. >> > > That`s intentional. > > The idea was to strip down to the basics of what we think is working > now > or how things are actually working in practice and then build up from > there as needed (and if needed). It`s not necessarily complete. It > needs > to reflect the community as it grows and changes. > > I think the intention a couple of years ago was to create a document > that would consider a large number of possibilities. And as a result > the > current constitution is quite long and complex. And although it is > very > detailed and complete, very few people have actually read and digested > it, and that`s especially true the further you get from the center of > the community. Explaining all the detail in the current constitution > to > new people is challenging, whereas I think new people are looking > for a > much simpler articulation of what the community is and how it > functions.
I agree with Jim here - we're a community, not a government. I think a more formal document gets in the way of people properly communicating with each other, and working through their difficulties. Glynn
