Re: GNOME Foundation Elections - Preliminary results

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:56:37PM -0500, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> I don't like this alternative.  The email is much simpler.  I would
> prefer either alan's suggested wording or putting the validation in
> the summary.

At the end of the day, apparently somebody is always going to mess it
up. The voting form as sent out was very clear. It talked about the
validation token in a separate paragraph about seven lines into the
voting instructions. It then mentioned that the validation token was
absolutely required again later on.

I think some of the other wording on the form could be tightened up,
since I was left in some doubt as to what I could and couldn't edit out
(and I seem to remember that previous years were easier), but there was
little doubt about the validation token and name and only up to eleven
votes. I don't mind having a "you must understand this mail at least
this much" entry standard to voting.

Malcolm

-- 
Borrow from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.