On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:58:35PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: > In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what > would be gained. Elimination of ambuguity. Recent events have persuaded me, however, that lots of people like their ambiguity, even if it ultimately ends up hamstringing us. I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same set of ballots. In you capacity as Project Secretary I would think you would be acutely sensitive to such issues. I also do not think that the issue of the recent GR can be tied to this technical point by any rational person. In fact, the guys from the election methods list have brought this up before, months previously, and were soundly ignored (at least, no one replied publicly). (Possibly because the subject matter may lie outside the expertise of many developers.) -- G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered." The Debian GNU/Linux | original Latin seems to have been branden@ecn.purdue.edu | garbled. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpkSFtwj8oqY.pgp
Description: PGP signature