John Plocher wrote: > The Board decided in Monday's meeting to explicitly not stop approving > new CG requests pending resolution of the "reorg" process, choosing instead > to move forward with both efforts in parallel, even if it means that we > will need to rewhack some "just approved" CGs to fit the new scheme. >
Sure, we should work both things in parallel, but that doesn't mean we ought to change how we'd consider something just because we are starting a reorg. What if the re-org fails and we are left with the current structure? That's not my understanding of what we agreed to in the call, anyway. If I misunderstood that conversation, I think we ought to re-consider. If it's not clear that a group should be a CG under the current system, let's address /that/ issue now and not just make a group into a CG only to have to change them in, say, six months, into something that they may not want. Working in parallel is fine if a group's request obviously fits the current system. We have some flexibility here. The OGB already voted in the first meeting of this term to temporarily ignore the letter of the constitution to overcome obstacles (with the stipulation that we fix the obstacle with a Constitutional Amendment). So, we can address any issue we want with this proposal (or others). Also, we already have things that don't fit into the current system: user groups and portals -- both of which are interim solutions that solved immediate problems but still need work. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
