Simon Phipps wrote:
> I think the proposed resolution recorded at
> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_2008/003
> needs more discussion before it's brought to the OGB meeting for a
> decision.
I fully agree. Thanks for following up.
> I believe we can instead choose to interpret
With the caveat (that I notice Glynn picked up on as well)
that this conversation starts us down the "word smith the
constitution" path that I for one would really like to
conciously avoid, the first four and last points are reasonable;
the "must be unanimous" part, which dooms such discussions to
being decided by a minority rather than a majority, is the
reason I proposed this action in the first place.
I see no reason to require unanimity here, since it is simply a
safeguard to prevent undesirably "fast" decision making. The
same result is obtained via a "derail" option that immediately
moves the decision/vote/discussion to a real meeting. How about:
* (bullet 2) s/when all members/when a majority of the current
OGB members in office/
* (bullet 4) s/from all members/from participating members/
* (bullet 5) The matter will be deemed to be approved if the
number of votes for is greater than the number of votes
against the resolution and no member derails the discussion
and so forces the decision to be made at a properly constituted
meeting of the OGB.
[strike: At this point, "such consent shall have the same
effect as a unanimous vote."]
* (bullet 6) Business that does not result in closure [was consensus]
via e-mail may be concluded at a properly constituted OGB meeting.
-John
