On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick
<Valerie.Fenwick at sun.com> wrote:
> Current vote is:
> Valerie -1
> JBeck -1
> Jim +1
> Plocher - from your last mail, I believe you're a -1, but if you
> could be explicit, it would be appreciated.
Val and others:
I am voting -1 on Jim's proposal of
Electorate: 377 Majority: 189 Quorum: 126
Why? Because the proposal is logically inconsistent in its
definitions of Electorate:
Google(define: electorate) says
Electorate: The people ... who are eligible to vote in an election.
The proposal says both
Electorate: 377 ...
and
1) all Core Contributors that have valid grants as of the 2010
Record Date [i.e., 428] can vote ... unless the number of
votes cast exceeds the electorate total,
By definition, you can not have more votes cast than there are
people in the Electorate. Either the voters are in the Electorate
(and can vote), or they can't vote at all. The result of this
unfortunately
worded proposal would be to inadvertently cast into doubt the
enfranchisement of 51 potential voters.
I *would* vote to approve a proposal that had
Electorate: 428 Majority: 189 Quorum: 126
These numbers are derived from:
Voters eligible to vote: all 428 Core Contributors as of the DOR.
Number of Auth'd voters on the DOR: 377, which sets expectations
Majority based on the number of Auth'd voters on the DOR: 189
Quorum based on the number of Auth'd voters on the DOR: 126
I *would not* vote to approve a proposal that had the higher values of
Majority: 215, Quorum: 143
-John
