Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Garrett D'Amore
> <gdamore at opensolaris.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the time has come to draft a constitution amendment limiting the
>> number of CC's that each CG can nominate, thereby ensuring that no one
>> CG (or small group of CGs) can effectively stymie the governance
>> process. (Or for that matter, take an unfair majority in any electoral
>> process involving the full membership.) I'd also suggest that groups
>> which require CC votes for "internal" matters to the CG might want to
>> allow non-core Contributors (i.e just C's) for such matters.
>>
>
> Instead of trying to figure out why people who are CCs didn't show up
> and addressing that issue head-on, let's instead kick them out so only
> your favored CGs get to stock the electorate? That's certainly not a
> sign of trust in the CG leaders nor in the faith of your fellow CCs.
>
You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about restricting any CG from
participating, only limiting *every* CG to some "maximum" number of CC
grants (for the purposes of governance). Think of it as each state
having only two Senators.
And obviously, such a change could not be made *now*, but only effected
for some future point in time.
Right now there is *no* limit on CC grants, and if one CG wanted to
"stock the electorate" with 500 CC grants, they could. This is not a
desirable (IMO) situation.
If anyone can offer any reasonable solution to the immediate crisis,
which is getting participation up, please do so. I still firmly believe
that apathy (at least in the larger group), and poorly chosen CC grants
(perhaps because the governance responsibility that comes with a CC
grant wasn't clear) is the larger reason why turn-out is so low.
There are a huge number of talented and valuable folks who contribute a
lot of effort but who also have little interest in anything outside a
fairly limited range concerns. These don't make great CC grants, IMO.
-- Garrett
