Thunderbird Council: Voting Process

The Wanderer wanderer at
Wed Feb 17 13:08:29 UTC 2016

On 2016-02-17 at 05:44, Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA) wrote:

> On 2/17/2016 2:00 AM, Onno Ekker wrote:
>> Op 16-2-2016 om 21:34 schreef Gervase Markham:

>>> 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.

(Out of curiosity: in that case, where/when is - or, if it's already
passed, where/when was - the occasion for such discussion? Is/was it
open to the community, or limited to people who already hold roles in
Thunderbird governance?)

>> 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 please.

On 2016-02-16 at 07:24, Gervase Markham wrote:

>>>> * Number of Yes votes
>>>> * Number of No votes
>>>> * Number of votes discounted due to being unclear
>>>> * Number of votes discounted due to voter ineligibility
>>>> * Number of votes discounted due to being late or early
>>>> * Number of votes discounted because the two scrutineers could not 
>>>>   agree on a determination
>>>> The motion shall be considered passed if the number of Yes votes 
>>>> strictly exceeds the number of No votes. If the number of votes in
>>>> the final category listed above is equal to or greater than the
>>>> margin of victory, the ballot shall be re-run.

I read this as saying that if there are more votes which the people
counting the votes disagree over how to count than votes which they can
agree about how to count, the ballot will be done over.

This says nothing about re-running the ballot ("same" or otherwise) in
any other case, including the case where the motion is rejected.

>> 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.

If I'm not mistaken, this is an intentional feature of Gmail. It checks
Message-IDs and sees that you already have (in your Sent folder) a copy
of a message with the same ID as this incoming message, so it discards
the incoming message as being a duplicate, without realizing - or,
apparently, caring - that the incoming copy has been modified from the
one which was sent out.

This makes _some_ degree of sense for people who read via the Gmail Web
interface, given some of the special "dynamic message location" features
of that interface. However, it doesn't account for people who want to
make use of possible modifications (new headers, altered headers, added
Subject-line tags, etc.), or for people who read by any other interface
- including a standalone mail client like Thunderbird.

   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list