I wonder (out loud) if we might recommend to change the format of the
[RESULT] [VOTE] tally to simply summarize the binding votes, just for
completeness. Clearly, the people who need to know who the binding
votes are already know it, and it doesn't strike folks quite in the
face if they
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
it's a hint that the voter is a pmc member.
*sigh*
Really, no, seriously, you're telling me that the PMC can't be trusted
to count votes from it's members and others it feels are qualified?
Wow...
Seriously, pointing out such differences just splits the community.
A thousand apologies.My bad. Am really sorry that i voted. Am
really sorry that i added a word after my vote. is this grovelling
enough or should i grovel a bit more? Get a life folks!
-- dims
On 10/23/06, david reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
it's a hint that the
David
I think you are wrong. Before I saw that syntax I used to assume that
I couldn't vote unless my vote was binding. I've seen this model
encourage non-PMC members to vote (myself included).
Paul
On 10/24/06, david reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
it's a hint that the
Might be nice to leave binding-ness as an accounting detail for the
person running the vote, to get rid of the my vote counts, yours
doesn't thing that David pointed out.
After all, if you get consensus, and it's all +1s.
geir
Paul Fremantle wrote:
David
I think you are wrong. Before
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Might be nice to leave binding-ness as an accounting detail for the
person running the vote, to get rid of the my vote counts, yours
doesn't thing that David pointed out.
After all, if you get consensus, and it's all +1s.
Bingo. That was David's point - the
On 10/23/06, david reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
it's a hint that the voter is a pmc member.
*sigh*
Really, no, seriously, you're telling me that the PMC can't be trusted
to count votes from it's members and others it feels are qualified?
Wow...
Seriously, pointing
