Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
That's true of some of our users too. There wo
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
That's true of some of our users too. There would be
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > And why do you think this should be allowed?
>
> Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
> reasonable understanding of debian politics.
That's true of some of our users too. There would be a few who ha
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > And why do you think this should be allowed?
>
> Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
> reasonable understanding of debian politics.
That's true of some of our users too. There would be a few who ha
> And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
> I think we should investigate why they are so long
> in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not
> a good idea IMHO, as
> And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
> I think we should investigate why they are so long
> in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not
> a good idea IMHO, as
Hi,
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 13:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:37:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default
> > option at 5 (v5).
>
> would not 2 be enough (v2) ?
>
That makes no difference whatsoever.
--
Hi,
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 13:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:37:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default
> > option at 5 (v5).
>
> would not 2 be enough (v2) ?
>
That makes no difference whatsoever.
--
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:37:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:11:23 +,
> >> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining?
>
> Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default
> opt
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:35:02AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:37:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:11:23 +,
> >> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining?
>
> Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default
> opt
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:11:23 +,
>> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining?
Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default
option at 5 (v5).
> Personally, I've yet to notice any of the DPLs whilst I
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:35:02AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> 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
> 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
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:11:23 +,
>> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining?
Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default
option at 5 (v5).
> Personally, I've yet to notice any of the DPLs whilst I
> 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
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:35:02 +1100,
>> Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than
> 6 months be able to vote.
You realize that needs a GR, and one with a super majority
requirement, to change the constitution.
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 me
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:35:02 +1100,
>> Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than
> 6 months be able to vote.
You realize that needs a GR, and one with a super majority
requirement, to change the constitution.
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:54:45 -0500,
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I did not vote in this election. I know who I'd have voted for, if
> I did vote, but I'm struggling with some more fundamental issues.
The polls are not yet closed.
> More generally, most Debian decisi
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 me
I did not vote in this election. I know who I'd have voted for, if I
did vote, but I'm struggling with some more fundamental issues.
More generally, most Debian decisions have been made by an "activist
elite". So far, that's seemed to work fairly well -- perhaps because
of our charter, we've be
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:54:45 -0500,
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I did not vote in this election. I know who I'd have voted for, if
> I did vote, but I'm struggling with some more fundamental issues.
The polls are not yet closed.
> More generally, most Debian decisi
I did not vote in this election. I know who I'd have voted for, if I
did vote, but I'm struggling with some more fundamental issues.
More generally, most Debian decisions have been made by an "activist
elite". So far, that's seemed to work fairly well -- perhaps because
of our charter, we've be
26 matches
Mail list logo
