>Alain: It had not occurred to me that responsibility
>of voting would be interpreted as a prerequisite that
>no one ever miss a vote, or risk losing partnership
>status. Your above statement conveys much better what
>I was thinking. You too, eh Rob ?
Alain, et al:
I saw voting on the name as a litmus test to _qualify_ for consideration
for partnership. That is different from saying missing a vote in the
future is cause for removal of a partner.
Frankly, I was surprised that only six votes were cast (BTW, Uli, I have
not received confirmation that I voted). My thought was, "why should
people who aren't committed enough to this project to express an opinion
receive a partnership?".
As to the second issue: if votes are scheduled well enough in advance, no
partner should miss a vote by surprise. And I do believe a partner has a
responsibility to vote unless circumstances make it impossible to do so.
Rob Cozens, CCW
http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.html
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
