RE: [registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures.

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the mean time, we need to abide by the current vote.

The current ballot is not within our rules, and therefore, the results of
any such election would be invalid.   Frankly, I am a little annoyed that we
just finished modifying the ballot, and still did not get it right.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Siegfried
Langenbach
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:55 AM
To: Registrars Constituency; Bob Connelly
Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures.


Siegfried Langenbach second that motion.

On 22 Sep 2004 at 7:23, Bob Connelly wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:23:51 -0700
To:             	Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
From:           	Bob Connelly <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:        	[registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures.

[...]
>
> MOTION:
> I hereby move that we have a runoff election between the two proposals
with
> the highest percentage of the prior vote, specifically:
>
> 1. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the
voting
> period.
> 2. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting
period.
>
> end quote:
>