On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:06 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> William, while I failed to join the discussion in the last 2 meetings
> and haven't been able to check what was approved, I'm also interested in
> this point. So Chrissy is not alone in this.
Ok, so we are up to two now. Have we neared or crested 1% ? We cannot
allow such a small percentage to hold things back. Put another way,
there are more trustees voting and saying go forward. Than those
contesting it. So outweighed right there.
> I also note that for the few months I followed the discussion on the nfp
> list about the bylaws, I only remember a mention to this around the
> council election time and I wasn't aware that it had in fact been enacted.
Drafts of the bylaws have been available for weeks.
> My personal opinion is that making this a rule is wrong and can prove to
> be counter-productive. I understand the reasons you and others have
> raised, but in my view this should be left to the voters - it is (or
> should be) their choice in the end.
Not everything the trustees do will be put to a vote. There is no
infrastructure in place for such voting as is. Much less when there are
votes put to the membership base. It will be on more important matters.
You casted your votes for the trustees. Thus they are representing you.
No need for representation, and then on top of that, representing ones
self. Plus votes will be reserved for major things. Like saying joining
Not for certain minor sections of bylaws or etc. When there is so much
the bylaws fail to address. Addresses in more controversial ways now,
etc and so on. Focus on this one section is quite odd. I have yet to see
counter arguments of factual reasons as to why it should be reversed,
changed, or voted on. So a meritless debate.
But let's say we voted. So far there are 2 votes against, and likely ~5
votes for. So whats the point? We know the results already. Just by the
number or lack there of, of those interested or commenting ;)
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo Linux Developer