[aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
seblu at seblu.net
Sun Mar 24 14:10:44 EDT 2013
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> Don deJuan wrote:
>>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result.
>>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>>> made up their minds.
> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
> issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives
> the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my
> reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No
> one did.
You explain again your former opinion.
It's not because you are the last one to answer that you convince everyone.
It's not because I will not give arguments to refute what you say that
you convince me or others readers.
> I think I have said all that I have to say on this issue. I remain disappointed
> by how this played out and I am not alone.
12 TU are disappointed. 14 not. This is a result of a tight vote.
Please, don't says the whole system is crap because graysky was not elected.
We can vote no, otherwise we no longer vote.
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
More information about the aur-general