Glynn Foster wrote: >> (Writing with a hint of apprehension at having to assist in the >> mustering of an affirmative majority for an amendment so soon--I guess >> I was hoping that a chunk of critical amendments would be assembled >> before a vote.) >> > > That's one issue where I feel out of place - I see the constitution as a > backup > when everything goes wrong. As long as we do things in the spirit of the > OpenSolaris community, with no strong objections to the contrary, I'd be more > than happy to 'bend' what's officially written in the constitution. I suspect > I'll be the minority on this view, but I think it's important that we don't > continually look to the constitution as a way of governing our communities - > the > people do that instead. >
I'm sorry to be so naive, but I'm really confused. What exactly is the problem? The Constitution defines the matter thusly: *6.6. Quorum and Voting.* A majority of the current OGB members in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The vote of a majority of the OGB members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the OGB. If 4 people can make the call its valid. If 3 of the 4 vote affirmatively the proposal is passed. Someone should initiate a call, the matter should be added to the agenda, voted upon, and passed. Bing, bang, boom... done. I'll take this opportunity to point out that OGB Calls are board meetings, not discussion hours. Discussion should occur in mail, IRC, whatever, and then be acted upon in a call as an official meeting. All this is laid out very clearly within the guidelines of Parliamentary Order. If discussion is required it become an agenda item with a pre-defined time limit, if the time limit is exceeded and further discussion is required someone needs to propose a motion to provide additional time for discussion, second, pass, etc.... Its formal but really efficient. Maybe I'm missing something but I see no reason to be discussing bending or changing the constitution. benr.
