Re: membership procedures
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: membership procedures
- From: Daniel Pocock <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:53:19 +0100
- Message-id: <5148DE4F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20130319214541.GC21105@rzlab.ucr.edu>
- References: <email@example.com> <513E9D51.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20130312110503.GH4684@an3as.eu> <20130312131352.GG18595@thunk.org> <20130312170924.GA104375@gwolf.org> <20130312173651.GA7259@upsilon.cc> <20130312193525.GE104375@gwolf.org> <5148D243.firstname.lastname@example.org> <5148DA56.email@example.com> <20130319214541.GC21105@rzlab.ucr.edu>
On 19/03/13 22:45, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm not sure at all why this is on -private; please feel free to
> respond to me publicly on -project or -vote while changing the subject
> and ditching the quoted responses.
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013,
>> On 19-03-13 22:01, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> - should changes to the membership be `frozen' when votes are in
>>> progress, e.g. the current DPL election, just as most countries freeze
>>> their voters roll some weeks before an election?
>> Why? What would the advantage be?
> I think that during a vote we probably should allow the keys to be
> frozen, even if just to make things easier for the Secretary.
Having such rules is a bit like having boundaries marked on a football
field. Where you put them is arbitrary as long as everybody can see
them. It helps with reassuring people about the transparency and
integrity of decision making processes.
Being pedantic becomes a practical consideration if a vote is very, very