Thunderbird Council: Voting Process
Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA)
vseerror at lehigh.edu
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.
> 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
> [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,
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
More information about the tb-planning