Re: integrity of elections
Glenn McGrath <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
And why do you think this should be allowed?
I think we should investigate why they are so long
in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not
a good idea IMHO, as someone else already said, they could actually
face an rejection, and in that case they should obviously not be allowed
Mario | Debian Developer <URL:http://debian.org/>
| Get my public key via finger email@example.com