On the text as originally worded, or on JBeck's amendment. I've lost the thread here.
S. On Mar 3, 2010, at 07:35, Jim Walker wrote: > Ok. > > I vote +1. > > Cheers, > Jim > > John Beck wrote: >> JBeck> Instead of "the electorate is 377, but we'll retroactively >> increase it >> JBeck> if needed", I think a more accurate statement is "the >> electorate is >> JBeck> 428". In the end, the 51 people whose accounts had gone >> inactive (some >> JBeck> of which have since been reactivated) will still be >> franchised, and >> JBeck> nobody will be able to accuse us (fairly or not) of playing >> games with >> JBeck> the numbers. >> Jim> That is a safer way to go, but we spent a lot of time >> organizing a >> Jim> clean well run election, and most people played by the rules and >> Jim> authenticated. We are already comprising by allowing people to >> vote who >> Jim> didn't play by the rules. A decision is a decision. >> Sorry, I don't see it that way. I don't see anyone not playing by >> the rules >> but merely not understanding the need to activate their account. I >> have been >> dealing with this on almost a daily basis as ON tech lead: people >> need to >> activate their accounts to push, and thought they had, but >> misunderstood >> something. So I don't think anyone is trying to "cheat". And in >> general, >> I try to keep an open mind about past decisions in light of new >> information, >> when I can. >> So, -1 on the proposal as worded. Should you amend it as I >> suggested, then I >> would be happy to approve. >> -- John >> http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck > > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
