On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:41:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:30:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a > > > proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.'' > > This is completely false. > Proposed change: > A.6.3 Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
...which doesn't talk about quorum at all. What was that about "misleading at best, or outright false at face value" ? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
