> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:06:15PM -0700, John Plocher wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Alan Hargreaves >> <Alan.Hargreaves at sun.com> wrote: >> > It is now well into the period for voting. I note that we have two >> > candidates who it appears have not submitted a candidate statement. >> >> I responded with my opinion on IRC at 9:43pm this evening: >> >> plocher: Re: candidates w/o statements: I believe (and it is a good >> topic for Wed's OGB meeting) that this disqualifies them. What that >> does for ballots witht heir names/numbers on them is unknown. (I >> would like to believe that they "dissapear" and everyone under them >> moves up one spot. > > The current Constitution (paragraph 6.3) only requires a statement of > commercial affiliations, but it does state that it must be published > before voting commences. > > It also states that the ballot must be complete at least seven days > before voting begins and we only allowed six days and one minute. > > Finally, it looks like I'm ineligible too as I failed to attest to my > Statement's accuracy, unless my making the statement counts as an > implicit attestation (which it probably doesn't).
silly. If I may use one word here, that is how that reads. What do we need next in the middle of the election process? A lawyer to fax in sworn depositions? Dennis
