On 2/25/2010 2:19 PM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Peter Tribble wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Simon Phipps <Simon.Phipps at sun.com> >> wrote: >>> Hey, enough. I don't care who is to blame just now, we can whip the >>> guilty >>> later. >>> >>> I move that the base number used to calculate the quorum for the actual >>> ballots shall be the number of people capable of legitimately voting >>> on the >>> day the ballot opens, regardless of potential eligibility. >>> >>> Do I have a second? >> >> Are you proposing we violate section 5.8 of the constitution and >> overturn a >> previous OGB decision and the messaging we've done to Members thus far? >> The constitution specifies how and when we do this, and messaging has >> been >> pretty consistent. > > You're right, Peter. I wasn't thinking of it like that. > > I obviously need to think more on this. The arguments about simply fixing > account problems is a good one, and I think we actually might have > something > in the middle. > > For example, if I scew up my login 3 times and need my account fixed, > as I was authenticated before, I think my account shuold be fixed. > > if, on the other hand, I had missed the dozens of emails (personal and to > lists) begging me to authenticate my account and still didn't, then maybe > too bad.
That was the point I was attempting to make, in that I don't necessarily check to see *why* someone is an inactive or what action they wish to perform when I go to reactivate them. Derek > > Valerie -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division
