On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
be
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 16:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are
you saying? I'm having trouble understanding. It is unquestionably the
Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this
requires the
[I see that we're now repeating discussions already had up-list, so this
will probably be my last post to this subthread.]
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:08:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Nor is it anything short of absurd for the Secretary to declare that a
resolution amends a Foundation
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank Further Discussion
as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es [090101 23:36]:
No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
boat shared with friends, you
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank Further Discussion
as
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
Part of the problem is that we never have no, just no on our
ballots, so the only alternative is to vote further discussion,
even if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion,
and, as far as you're concerned, the matter is settled.
You
7 matches
Mail list logo
