[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ending votes early

On Tue, 13 May 2003 03:23:19 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> said: 

> On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 09:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>> BTW, people did revote on the last day of the DPL elections, and
>> the narrowest victory was in single digit votes, ( 4 beats 2: 228
>> 224 = 4 ).

> If there were 4 people who hadn't voted, then, the outcome was still
> in doubt. With the number of developers, and the number who don't
> even vote for DPL, I doubt that clause could ever be used.

> If the 2003 DPL election is any guide --- with 831 developers and
> 488 votes cast --- that clause could never be invoked except in an
> absolute landslide, and quite possibly never. I think that makes it
> fairly worthless.

	Hmm. Given this, I would not strongly resist Raul's latest
 change that defines what "no longfer in doubt" means, and letting the
 clause stay in. Given the size of the project, I can easily convinve
 myself that several hundred people would not vote on any given topic,
 so the odds of any general vote where this clause can be applicable
 are vanishingly small; and votes with smaller numbers of voters may

	So, if rauls view has large numbers of silent supporters, now
 is your cue to unlurk.

I have never understood this liking for war.  It panders to instincts
already catered for within the scope of any respectable domestic
establishment. Alan Bennett
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: