> I'm not sure what you are suggesting? I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a statement like the one Simon requested from all candidates. I am also suggesting that while it would be nice to have that for this election voluntarily, not having it should not be a valid basis for rejecting a candidate for the current election, since the request occurred after the official start of the voting period.
I don't have any problem with someone providing a statement. I do have a problem with people stating that they will reject out of hand a candidate that does not provide one if the request was not present at the start of voting. > I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_ > (those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_ send > such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso than > the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you. See above. I would like to see evidence that a candidate has thought about the long-term process and what they intend to do as chair. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
