Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
joerg_rw,
I understand your rationale but look at this way; woody has said the voting ballots were delayed twice by a day and both times it was due to technical issues. Secondly, Council took the step to question Jaffa about the situation as they too needed a clarification on the unusual scenario so isn't that a sign of them trying to be accomodating to all? Let's try not to be too harsh on them and they might have at first been simply worried that this would set a precedent for any other voting matters like coding competition [there were 1 or 2 entries a few hours late this year which were rejected, IIRC] etc wrt late entries. After seeing the situation again they decided to consult Jaffa so not too bad isn't it? All IMO only... |
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
And Jaffa, aiui, didn't opt for "the rules say if there are more than 5 on end of nomination period, elections have to start one week later. even if all candidates died in an airplane crash meanwhile" But that's basically how SD69 reads the rules, he'd no way extend nomination period and rather go with a council of possibly *zero* living candidates to vote, while 500 living and willing, though late candidates were just waiting to self-nominate if only they extended nomination period. |
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
since 9/11 hostage taking and similar act of terrorism are the felony but it doesn't make blackmailing a sinecure :mad: this being clarified, what is your point now? |
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
Honestly, please grow a brain, announcing a perfectly legitimate action is no blackmailing :-o WTF in any related regulations there's any rule that forbids me withdrawing my candidature? For your convenience: Quote:
The reasoning of my initial withdrawal wasn't to blackmail or take hostage, but to help council to allow then do the right thing in spirit of election rules, rather than bend a rule (the one about nomination closing [edit]two weeks[/edit] before vote starts). Council however, for very obscure and non-disclosed reasons, decided to antagonise this idea by not going the golden bridge I built for them but rather invent new rules (withdrawal forbidden) and ignore/bend others (no council of less than 3 people, some other rules as well), just to establish a situation that's obviously the opposite of what rules were intended for (a council with preferrably 5 elected by vote members) I'd rather question the legitimacy of current council's announcement of a 2 seats new council, without even bothering to explain how they came to think that's what the spirit and words of council election rules suggest should be done. To me it's pretty evident that all spirit of rules is to interpret them in a way so we get more candidates and finally maximum number of council members, rather than deliberately shortening the process by just ignoring/tweaking/inventing rules to not extend nomination period. I wonder what's wrong with you guys here. You're seriously deranged to accuse me of criminal action. |
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
please stop this madness
|
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
|
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
|
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
|
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
you have been standing at the bar, barely able to keep up for too many hours, emptying one drink after the other picking a fight with every other guest and when the bar tender asks you to pay you start shouting "not before i had another drink!" |
Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
Quote:
So WTF is your point? Beyond trolling here? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50. |
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8