On 25/02/2010 22:02, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Then why didn't your team correct the previous announcements stating that > accounts had to be reactivated by Feb. 14 in order for voters to be eligible > to vote? For instance, I don't see this raised in the thread at: > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2010-February/006912.html
'eligible' is more accurately phrased as 'able', and in any case it wasn't my choice of words. > In fact, Alan Burlison argued the opposite point in that thread: > If they haven't validated their account it seems reasonable to assume > they are not playing an active part in the community any longer and have > in effect disenfranchised themselves. In the immediately prior paragraph I said: AB> If they reactivate their accounts then yes, they will reappear in the AB> list and yes, they will be able to vote. Which is still correct, and subsequent to that mail it was pointed out to me that I was wrong - which I was - account status has no impact on the right to vote. For example we have at least one proxy voter this election who can't access the electronic system, so we have to provide another mechanism for them to vote, irrespective of their account status. I'm also unclear what your point is, in that same mail you said: AC> But their grants are still valid, and they should be able to vote if they AC> activate their accounts. which appears that you believe that account state is not linked to voting rights. Is that still correct, or have you changed your position? > And if the inactive accounts are grants of record, but the auth application > doesn't show them because they're inactive, how is that accurately maintaining > the public record? Yes, that seems like it is a bug in the web interface, we'll get it fixed ASAP. Note however that the inactive account data will be supplied to poll even though it doesn't appear in the web interface. http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=14863 -- Alan Burlison --
