PhilipsJosConstitutionDiscussion.Main @ jos.sf.net

PolicyPages; PhilipsJosConstitutionProposal

The following article discusses issues to the proposal for changes to the JOS Project Constitution. Posted by PhilipGonia (16 August 2001).

I still feel the Article IV needs to be changed to reflect some other method of voting. I liked Iain's discussion on a WEB based voting system where voting members go and make their votes by selecting a radial button or checkbox.

A much cleaner approach. I did not reflect this idea here because I was unsure as to how to outline such a system. Maybe Iain could make changes to Article IV?

PhilipGonia 8-16-01

Great job! I am in favor of small changes to the constitution.

I don't want anyone to underestimate the power of paragraphs 2.3. It might be the most important concept presented in our constitution.
Paragraph 2.1 should read "Create an open source, free license, extensible operating system."
And paragraph 2.1.3 should read "Free license means that the operating system will be made available to end users for use free of licensing fees."
Why require a number of days to announce a vote before people start to cast their vote? I wouldn't mind if there was no delay. People should start voting on a proposal as soon as it is proposed.
Why require a replacement of the constitution? Amendments might help the constitution evolve as the project evolves.

-- GilbertHerschberger (17 August 2001)

"Why require a number of days to announce a vote before people start to cast their vote? I wouldn't mind if there was no delay. People should start voting on a proposal as soon as it is proposed. -- GilbertHerschberger (17 August 2001)"

I disagree. The proposal should be open for review and discussion for a period determined by the proposer. The proposal discussion is to be conduced in a manner we are using here. At such time that the proposer feels that a the discussion as reached some level of agreement (whereby s/he feels that a vote could be taken with positive results for the proposal) the proposer would place it up for a vote. This also allows any other member to post any competeing proposal. It may be that during this discussion time frame that one or more competeing proposals are used/combined to produce the final proposal that would then be opened for a vote.

A vote advertisment may be made even during the final days of the discussion time frame.

What we see goning on here is a simple debate on this current proposal (The JOS Constitution). This is a healthy process that should be allowed to continue for some time frame.

"Why require a replacement of the constitution? Amendments might help the constitution evolve as the project evolves.-- GilbertHerschberger (17 August 2001)"

The current Constitution does not outline provisions for making amendments to its content. It does however allow changes to be made to it. See article 4.2. I have added an additional section called "Appendix A Revision History" to provide a means of recording such changes.

Since this is a proposed changed Constitution, it can be compared to the current approved one. Once this or other proposed Constitution has been voted on and approved, the OLD one should be placed in a historical archive.

I just feel that dealing with and adding the requirement of Amendments adds to much complexity to a document thats is almost always a complex document to start with. Way add more work to a project that already has its work cut out.

I would like to see this be as simple as it has to be in order to get the job done.

PhilipGonia (19 Aug. 2001)

Content of these pages are owned and copyrighted by the poster.
Hosted by: