>> > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >> FWIW, I believe that e-mail explaining the meeting, and why folks needed >> >> to attend, was sent to all of the core contributors. I do believe that >> >> failure to participate is mostly due to apathy on the part of said >> >> CC's. (No, I've not taken a poll -- but if I could *poll* those folks >> >> who didn't participate, then I'd probably be able to get them to >> >> participate!) >> >> >> Bonnie Corwin wrote: >> > What's the harm in trying a very specific email asking people for >> > specific action by a certain day/time? If nothing happens, then perhaps >> > we can assume apathy. At the moment, I'm not ready to concede that that >> > is the whole problem. >> >> >> I would go further than that. The lack of agenda, and of any useful, >> structured, conversation in #opensolaris-meeting, has put me off. The idea >> that my signing in and identifying myself somehow lends legitimacy or >> quorum bothers me. Because I have not participated. >> >> I'm happy to participate. I'll do background reading. I'll offer >> opinions, if and when appropriate. I'll attend a meeting. But calling an >> IRC channel "#opensolaris-meeting" does not qualify it as such. >> >> If Plocher is right, and quorum is badly defined, then we need to fix the >> definition of quorum. >> >> If Garrett is right, and quorum is appropriately defined, but CC grants >> have run amok, then we need to fix the grant situation. >> >> In either case, we need to identify and address the real problem. >> >> Encouraging members of the community to jump through this hoop is silly, >> obfuscates the real problem, and takes resources that could be better >> applied towards finding a real solution. > > The problem is that you can't solve our current issue without first > meeting the requirements. > > We can't amend the constitution without reaching quorum, etc. > > The best option at this point seems to be not meeting quorum, thereby > allowing the constitution to be flushed and starting over.
That's quite a leap. If you decide the problem is "the constitution needs to be flushed," then you're right. But that's phenomenally broader than "we defined quorum badly" or "we got grant-happy," and none of the suggested answers to the question "why don't we have quorum?" has seemed to be "because the constitution is entirely wrong." > That would be easier in my view than trying to patch up the current one. Maybe you're right, but I think you're lumping multiple problems together. I'm unwilling to jump from this thread (basically, "Why can't we get quorum?") to that conclusion. Somewhere here there's an analogy involving babies and bathwater. --Mark
