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've
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 to be
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is how I undesrtanfd the Shall/Will distinction:
Shall is used to express the simple future for first person I
and we, as in Shall we meet by the river? Will would be used
in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the
HTMLBODY
FONT SIZE=-2entrapment/FONTBR
FONT COLOR=#FF SIZE=-4jhovwsvdfb bnfsqw t hhvcm
dds ixzawkxnhut t hctaqwx bqu oawazgzgjfokpyyewzxmlmkxwq nrbend hi kkiqvdpy/FONTBR
FONT SIZE=+1BUBachelors, Masters, MBA, and Doctorate (PhD)
diplomas:/U/B/FONT
BRFONT COLOR=#FF SIZE=-4mnxhudv
fhw
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:13:33 +0100 (CET),
Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava:
Why is it harsh? I certainly did not mean it to be. It was meant
to be a statement of fact.
Okay, the use of shall instead of will just sounded very weird
to me. But then again,
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, 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 to be
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
option at 5
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 if they are
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.
--
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is how I undesrtanfd the Shall/Will distinction:
Shall is used to express the simple future for first person I
and we, as in Shall we meet by the river? Will would be used
in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the
HTMLBODY
FONT SIZE=-2entrapment/FONTBR
FONT COLOR=#FF SIZE=-4jhovwsvdfb bnfsqw t hhvcm
dds ixzawkxnhut t hctaqwx bqu oawazgzgjfokpyyewzxmlmkxwq nrbend hi
kkiqvdpy/FONTBR
FONT SIZE=+1BUBachelors, Masters, MBA, and Doctorate (PhD)
diplomas:/U/B/FONT
BRFONT COLOR=#FF SIZE=-4mnxhudv
fhw
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
