On 2012-01-31 17:16:59 (+0000), Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@gmail.com> wrote:
+1!
Let's add that as a TODO for the board, to refine the election process to include a "none of the above" option, as well as to arrange a "non-voting member" status. Or at least to discuss it :)
I shouldn't have voted for this. Why do you also agree on segregation ? Why can't people who have earned membership by contributions need to be forced to vote?
No one said anything like that. "Segregation" is your very personal interpretation. It is precisely to have a solution which solves both the issue of having non-voting members as well as to enable people who contribute but don't care about voting to keep their membership status.
Please give me a reasonable explanation and feel free to explain what you believe by democracy and freedom of choice.
It has been discussed at length here, but not always in a very productive manner thanks to some ... erm ...
Not me this time.
No, I didn't mean you at all :)
So let's pick it up soon, try to summarize and try to find something that works.
Hopefully not this segregation/prejudice kind of thing.
Well, let's discuss it in a civil manner without calling out people as stalinists or liars. A somewhat objective list of possible solutions and pros and cons of each would be a way to clarify the debate. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf