We have one veto on the record. I believe we need an explanation for the veto in order for it to be counted?
--- Danesh Irani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 Reject the tally > > I hope people arent voting to reject the proposal > just because they > didnt like the outcome. > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:40:41 -0800, Mike Matrigali > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > Kathey Marsden wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that it would be very sad and bad > karma to have our logo under such a cloud of > suspicion. So I would like to call a vote to > reject this tally. I've heard lots of great ideas > on how to resolve this issue either technologically > or socially but I think first we need to establish > that this tally is incorrect. Then if we agree to > reject, ensuing discussions can determine how to > best choose a logo. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>Logo 32 = 20 votes > > >>>Logo 35 = 12 votes > > >>>None of the above = 18 votes > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vote > > > +1 Reject the tally. New method of choosing a > logo is determined by the community. > > > -1 Not to reject the tally. Keep the vote tally > as is with 32 as the winner. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Kathey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
