Thunderbird Council: Voting Process

Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA) vseerror at
Wed Feb 17 10:44:46 UTC 2016

On 2/17/2016 2:00 AM, Onno Ekker wrote:
> Op 16-2-2016 om 21:34 schreef Gervase Markham:
>> On 16/02/16 13:27, Onno Ekker wrote:
>>> I'd think a motion like this would require at least a 2/3 majority,
>>> given how much responsibility the new council will get…
>> Just to save everyone's time, I would reiterate that the message about
>> how the vote will be administered was not a proposal for discussion.
>> Gerv
> So, both people that are against the process and people that are against
> one or more proposed members of the council should vote no? Giving you
> no way to distinguish between the two?
> And if the motion is rejected (fat chance I admit), you say the ballot
> shall be re-run. So you're going to do the same motion, until it is
> passed? That doesn't sound too much like a democratic way of doing things…

I don't recall seeing a statement that the *same* motion would be rerun. 
My recollection is was stated that a new vote would be taken.  Citation 

> Onno
> [I've reordered you p.s. just a bit.]
>Gerv replied to my original message, but my message itself didn't
> make it through moderation.  so please approve my original message.

I can assure you it was approved. And I have your email in my folder, so 
it definitely went through the list. Apparently you did not get a copy 
of your own message with Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:27:47 +0100.

Check if your message is in spam.  If you don't find it, send me a copy 
of your original message with the full headers and I'll see if there's 
something there that might have caused a problem.

 > P.S. Missing messages make threads harder to read,
I agree.

> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at

More information about the tb-planning mailing list