Whether or not officially announced; I can count roughly 14 threads discussion various aspects of it. The earliest one
seems to have been started around April 28th. That's at least 3½ months of discussion relating to the proposal currently being voted on.
I see this thread going one of two ways:
- None of the discussion threads included the text "this begins the customary 2 weeks of discussion before a vote can take place". The vote should therefore be considered invalid.
- The topic has been discussed enough to satisfy the 2 weeks bylaw, and the vote should continue. Whether or not the outcome will be in favour of the restructure (and it doesn't look likely at this stage) or not is not part of the consideration. Whether or not the concerns with the current state are valid (and to me they seem to be) are not part of the consideration.
Do we railroad the vote because nobody said "there's a vote in 2 weeks", or let it be seen that there are real concerns which should be addressed, by letting it go to completion? I personally feel like it would be supremely pedantic to argue in favour of #1 at this point. It detracts from the technical arguments against the restructure to say; this is why the vote should not pass.
My read on the situation may be flawed, and I'm not a voting member. Bear these in mind as you think about what is mostly my personal opinion.
Kind regards
Chris