On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 06:38:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > We need a secretary, now, to deal with the current situation and to > > > focus on procedure.
On 31-Oct-00, 04:56 (CST), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We *have* one. On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:26:19AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > That's not completely obvious to those of us reading the lists. Well, maybe it wasn't obvious, but it should be obvious now. Or do you think I'm lying? > There's been no response to several urgent questions regarding the > current ballot, not even "I'm stuck in private business, back in two > weeks, please consider everything on hold", which would be perfectly > acceptable in our volunteer organization. So? Personally, I'm working a full time job development job, holding down an infrastructure (network ops) job that needs someone else to fill it, and working a part time teaching job. And, I'm married, and I spend time with my wife. I'm stealing a few minutes right now, that I could be putting towards something more useful, because I feel like it. But that's just me. > We have no right or ability to force participation from our members, > but it would be polite for someone in such a (currently) critical > position to ask for help when needed. Sure, but given the negative remarks people have levelled at Darren, this situation has [unfortunately] devolved below polite and supportive communication. > > There isn't any particular urgency for him to act at the moment, and > > he wants to make sure that what he says next is as correct as possible. > > Actually there was an urgency. There isn't now, because the vote ended > 10/23/2000, with no response from Darren after 10/10/2000 (unless I > inadvertantly deleted something, which is quite possible, so feel free > to correct me). Almost anything Darren says is going to be taken as some kind of official significance. I think he's most concerned with doing the right thing. Thanks, -- Raul
