On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Section 2.2.2: > With regard to eligibility, I think rather than "subscribed as of X", > it might be better to do something involving both actual participation > and a period of time. For example, a requirement that someone have > made a substantive post sometime in the previous 18 months, where > "substantive" means something which is part of an on-topic technical > discussion (including just expressing support for a proposal, but not > organizational issues), and is determined by the vote-taker subject to > appeal.
To what end? If "substantive" is determined by the vote-taker, this requires not only scouring of the mailings over the last 18 months, and is also relatively subjective. Yes, there could be a loose definition of "substantive", where the vote-taker follows what he/she deem to be under these guidelines, but even then, the guidelines are open to interpretation. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, I do feel however that attempting to explicitly define something that may or may not be easily defined could lead to interpretation problems. Just my $0.02. -- Jacob Thebault-Spieker Cell: (320) 288-6412 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
