Dennis> At this point you can not cut off people and say that if they Dennis> don't get their votes in ( again ) then their votes don't count. Dennis> We actually *need* those ballots.
I disagree. IMO giving those 33 people ample opportunity to re-vote is sufficient. Otherwise, someone (however improbably) could decide to screw the system and refuse to re-vote. Now, I happen to think it is likely that most of the 33 (of which I am one) will re-vote quickly, but there may be a few people who are on vacation (e.g., my kids are on spring break this week, and I'm still hoping to take a day or two off to spend with them). Thus I think that after a day or so, it might make sense to publish the names of the remaining outstanding balloters so that e.g., if Joe knows that Jane is on vacation, he might be able to contact her so she can make arrangements to re-vote. PS full disclosure for anyone wondering why I might have abstained on one of the questions: it was the Priorities question, and my opinion is that our two most important priorities were not on the list, and since writing in those priorities was not an option, I abstained on that question. -- John http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck
