Le 26/02/2022 à 23:22, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>> I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer
>> required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people
>> like it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see
>> about how we pick a different
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
>> However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to
>> change how we collect votes.
Don> I don't want it to take a 3:1 majority to add additional
Don> methods (web based, I'm presuming), but I think not allowing a
Don> signed
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm supportive of a change here, and let's see if we can work out
> something that we both like. IN particular, I agree with the
> following:
>
> 1) As long as it make sense, we should continue to support email voting.
[...]
> However, I don't think it
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 04:54:30PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I propose the following amendment to this ballot option, which if
> rejected I propose as its own option:
>
> modified english/devel/constitution.wml
> @@ -266,7 +266,8 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>
>
Kurt Roeckx wrote on 26/02/2022 at 12:47:16+0100:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:06:20AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>> 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional
>> amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain
>> sufficient project
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:06:20AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional
> amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain
> sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works.
I plan to look at
On 2/25/22 09:06, Sam Hartman wrote:
2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional
amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain
sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works.
This feels almost like a tautology of sorts...
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
Don> Rationale: e-mail should continue to be an option for casting
Don> votes even while alternative methods of casting ballots might
Don> also be allowed.
I'm supportive of a change here, and let's see if we can work out
something that we both
Don Armstrong writes:
> I propose the following amendment to this ballot option, which if
> rejected I propose as its own option:
Just for clarity's sake for everyone following, since this process is now
a bit different, there is no longer a formal amendment process like this.
You just propose
I propose the following amendment to this ballot option, which if
rejected I propose as its own option:
modified english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -266,7 +266,8 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
-Votes are cast in a manner suitable to the Secretary.
+Votes are
10 matches
Mail list logo
