The ARC's fasttrack model of implied consent may be useful here.
The approval model starts with the presumption that silence = consent,
introduces a TIMER for discussion (which the ARCs set to be 1 week).
Any member can ask for MORE TIME or DERAIL a fasttrack.
It works as follows:
A proposal is submitted stating that it is a fasttrack
along with the date at which it times out as approved.
At any time until the timeout, any member can ask for
more time to extend the timeout.
At any time until the timeout, any member can derail the
proposal to cause it to be scheduled as an agenda item
on a future formal meeting where it will get a formal vote.
Any formal meeting before the timeout can approve a fasttrack:
"anyone want more time? anyone wish to derail? Approved."
Otherwise, once timed out, the proposal is presumed to have
been unanimously approved by implied consent.
Much easier to presume consent and optimize for the normative case
than to presume dissent and conflict and require affirmative action
from everyone on every action.
-John
Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Stephen Lau wrote:
>> But I've never been a huge fan of politics and unnecessary process; so
>> maybe that's just me.
>
> Some sanity is needed here and in general with the day to day business of the
> OGB - if we're spending all our time quoting the constitution, quite frankly,
> we're not getting the important stuff done.
>
> Most decisions IMHO should be general consensus, based on *good common sense*.
> If the board is indeed split on an issue, then we need to assess whether the
> issue itself (or proposed solutions) need to be thought out some more. Formal
> voting should be the final step if there is deadlock, and the board
> desperately
> needs to make a decision and move on to more important things.
>
>
> Glynn
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
