>Plocher> 3) We choose to move ahead anyways - "if the rules get in the way >Plocher> of doing what is right, do what is right, and fix the rules later." >Plocher> Treat the election as valid, put the new board in place, and continue >Plocher> on, with a bunch of work to do. > >Plocher> I assert that, if we don't get to quorum, choice 3 is the only viable >Plocher> one for us as a community. As it stands now, we have ~80 people >Plocher> who care enough about the community to actually participate in its >Plocher> operation. This implies we have a community structure that is out >Plocher> of whack with the community itself, and the first thing the new OGB >Plocher> (along with the 80 or so members who have indicated that they wish to >Plocher> be involved) needs to do is figure out a better structure, play test >Plocher> it for a year, adjust things as needed, write down what works, and >Plocher> forge *that* document into a constitution to be voted upon next year. > >General agreement. I think the current quorum rule, though sort of OK in >theory, is a little silly in practice. Something more sensible to me would >be "1/3 of the CCs needs to 'sign in', then once we have a quorum, we can >'disband' and have our election", rather than having to have 1/3 of the CCs >all there at once. But fundamentally I agree with you that finding something >that works in practice is more important than trying to follow to the letter >a nascent process which still clearly has several kinks to be worked out.
We had agreed that there would not be an "all there at once" tule but rather "all need to stand up at some point and be counted. I'm certain that that is what was intended. Casper
