I can go with this. I'll try to wordsmith something.
That would give us 3 votes. I'm not willing to include inactive electorate in the Majority and Quorum counts. Cheers, Jim On 03/ 3/10 04:03 PM, John Plocher wrote: > 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
