Hi,
Le 08/03/2022 à 00:26, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
Sam Hartman dixit:
Thorsten> Alternative solutions may • have accessibility problems
Thorsten> (not work with lynx, for example
Working with Lynx is not a requirement for accessibility.
No, but not working with lynx is an
Hi Thorsten,
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 15:31, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Sam Hartman dixit:
>
> >Thorsten> Alternative solutions may • have accessibility problems
> >Thorsten> (not work with lynx, for example
> >
> >Working with Lynx is not a requirement for accessibility.
>
> No, but not
Sam Hartman dixit:
>Thorsten> Alternative solutions may • have accessibility problems
>Thorsten> (not work with lynx, for example
>
>Working with Lynx is not a requirement for accessibility.
No, but not working with lynx is an accessibility problem.
>Obviously accessibility depends on
> "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes:
>> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and
>> "their":
>>
>> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that
>> their vote is included in the votes+} cast.
Judit> I agree. It makes
> "Thorsten" == Thorsten Glaser writes:
>> At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary
>> must conduct a vote via email. There are no current plans to
>> move away from
Thorsten> This is a very bad idea.
Hi.
Several of the issues you brig up are
> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and "their":
>
> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that their
> vote is included in the votes+} cast.
I agree.
It makes this option diverge a bit from the Option A it was forked from,
but since the
Hi,
On 05/03/22 at 20:49 +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:47:40PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/03/22 at 19:36 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > A suggestion:
> > >
> > > An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
> > >
>At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
>conduct a vote via email. There are no current plans to move away from
This is a very bad idea.
Alternative solutions may
• have accessibility problems (not work with lynx, for example)
• require different transport (eMail
Hi Judit,
> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and "their":
{+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that their
vote is included in the votes+} cast.
Please proceed either way, at your choosing.
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
signature.asc
Hi Judit,
it might be a bit late for a change now, but at first I had some
difficulties parsing the last added sentence in 4.2:
Judit Foglszinger writes:
> 4.2. Procedure
> @@ -228,9 +246,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>Votes are taken by the Project
10 matches
Mail list logo
