> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My original point was that people who do not actually > > exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- > > and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having > > inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate > > quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes.
In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining? Personally, I've yet to notice any of the DPLs whilst I've been in the project achieving very much, and was not sufficiently convinced by any of the manifestos to actually want to vote for any of the candidates; equally, I expect any of them would do a passable job, so I don't want to vote RON either. Matthew -- Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire http://www.pick.ucam.org
