On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/8/12 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com>: >> It is my understanding that the parties incorrectly stricken >> previously were not contacted. I believe that an attempt should be >> made to contact stricken parties, even if it means delaying the >> results. > > Really? That amazes me. Surely everyone that has their vote stricken > for any reason should be informed. You can't accept a vote and then > throw it away without telling the voter, that's appalling.
Note: Even if I'm not incorrect, I'm speaking about people who were stricken and later fixed, it may just be that they were fixed before a message could have gone out. I too agree that there is an obligation to contact, hopefully with enough time to respond and point out an error, but I don't believe that the the contact must be absolutely immediate. (For those who might think we're just splitting hairs on this: In last years election there were several pairs of candidates with a fairly small margin between them, 8 votes in one case. With three candidates being elected I don't believe its outrageous that the striking might conceivably change the result of the election, so it really should be handled with the utmost of care for practical reasons as well as principled ones) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
