On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Simon Phipps <Simon.Phipps at sun.com> wrote: > As the motion is seconded we are now in a discussion period. > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 17:18, 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. > > I am simply suggesting we pragmatically interpret the constitution and treat > those with unvalidated accounts as choosing not to have CC status.
We have *already* done that, and publicly communicated that decision. My quibble is not with that, but with the change to the record date. As far as I can see, we have some latitude to interpret "eligible to vote" - which is essentially what we're doing here - but the record date and timetable doesn't seem as easy to work around. (And note that it's not the date of the ballot that's relevant here, but 10 days before the start of the meeting.) The constitution also says that once you've made the list on the record date, you can't change it afterwards. (And the proposed new constitution works exactly the same way both in this area and the 10-day timing.) So, as I see it, the *only* discussion we can have is whether we stick with the publicly announced decision that those with unvalidated accounts on Feb 14th chose to be ineligible to vote, or whether we reverse that decision to allow all CCs, including those who didn't bother to validate their accounts. What we can't do is move the record date or change people's validity after that date. Even reversing our decision after we've passed critical dates and are in the middle of the process seems highly suspect. (Sigh. We shouldn't even be bikeshedding about this. As my boss keeps telling me: Decide what you're going to do; tell people what you're going to do; then do what you said you would do.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
