Re: integrity of elections
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:35:02AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > My original point was that people who do not actually
> > exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set --
> > and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
> > inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate
> > quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes.
> I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote.
I disagree. Isn't it better to solve the problem of long wait times than
to give people priviledges early? Priviledges that potentially they may
not otherwise get (ie if they are rejected).
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>