Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2009, at 01:21, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> Simon Phipps wrote: >>> OK, the deadline is approaching. Any last words before we seal up the >>> Constitution and put it to the electorate? >> >> Please forgive my ignorance, but it was said that the OGB's first >> business will be to modify the charter. Can further clarification be >> provided if not already available? Without clarification, it suggests >> that the constitution is in violation of the charter and it must be >> mended after the fact. > > Since the changes to the Charter are changes that will reflect new > clauses in the Constitution and since the Constitution was still open > to modification until put to the vote, the OGB felt after discussion > that it would be better to modify the Charter once the Constitution > was adopted. > > We asked Sun for leave to operate this way, as you will have seen from > mail I sent to their official contact yesterday, and Sun agreed that > in the event the new Constitution was adopted, it was happy for > modification of the Charter to match the Constitution to the > satisfaction of both the community and Sun to be performed by the > incoming OGB.
I am both shocked and scared at this reckless abuse. The charter was created to keep our governance in check... it should not be changed! As I see it there is one major component of the charter that must be changed to comply with the new constitution, that being to strike Charter 2.5: 2.5. The intended methods of communication between the OGB and Sun. The constitution is mute on this point. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Do we really wish to sever our connection to the company that owns our communities trademark? website? code? .... Besides this, records (OGB Meeting Minutes) show no mention of compliance with Charter Section 11, indeed there is no mention of the Charter at all. It appears that any regard for the Charter was taken only recently. To accept this new constitution is a blatant and egregious disregard for rule of law, the cleanup of which is left to the next board. How can this electorate accept such disregard? How can we trust any relationship with Sun when they are willing to cooperate? The board doesn't want to be involved in technical disputes, doesn't want to be the communication channel for our community with SMI, doesn't want to police the community... and now we're expected to stamp this utter lack of interest or responsibility into stone? Illegally at that? I say again, as I did weeks ago.... this is wrong. benr.
