Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My original point was that people who do not actually >> exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- >> and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having >> inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate >> quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. >> > > I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months > be able to vote.
And why do you think this should be allowed? I think we should investigate why they are so long in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not a good idea IMHO, as someone else already said, they could actually face an rejection, and in that case they should obviously not be allowed to vote. -- CYa, Mario | Debian Developer <URL:http://debian.org/> | Get my public key via finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44
