On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500 David Boyes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A failure to respond to a request from the community is an > > indication to me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee. > > It has nothing to do with what is or is not required by the process. > > I disagree. We're changing the rules mid-stream. > > Right now, there is no requirement for anyone to provide a statement. > If someone does, then good for them, but we shouldn't penalize people > for not making one if it isn't required by the process. The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see that Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or anything like that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far as I can read. It seems good that voters express such opinions, so candidates know what the voters are specifically looking for, if anything. I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff does, then... good for him. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
