On 02/25/10 08:07 PM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Peter Tribble wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Jim Walker <James.Walker at sun.com> >> wrote: >>> On 02/25/10 12:48 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm with Plocher; the whole point of the date of record is that you >>>> set >>>> the numbers and eligibility at a fixed point in time. Once you've done >>>> that you generate the fixed list. >>>> >>>> So we go with the lower quorum. >>> >>> Then, we use the Feb 20th numbers? >>> >>> Electorate: 377 Majority: 190 Quorum: 126 >> >> That's what the constitution says. It says something like >> "entitled to vote on the date of record". We agreed that was >> only those who registered in time. At this point we can't change >> the list. >> >> (Shouldn't it be 189 not 190?) > > Yes, but unfortunately, Bonnie said her team has sent mail to these > people telling them that if they fix their account, they can vote. Sorry to introject here. I believe the OGB collective decision should be final here regardless of what Bonnie and her team has said. Otherwise, the purpose and the existence of OGB is meaningless. They can be directed to read this thread if they have query.
-Ghee > > Does the auth system even have a way of distinguishing? > > I like Simon's suggestion to start with the earlier stated quorum > (and I sent mail based on that to everyone just now), but am open > to continue to discuss before the election starts. > > Plocher should have the list of "record" that doesn't include the > unauthenticated people. > > Valerie > > > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20100225/54e1fb09/attachment.html>
