Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu> wrote: > Too bad we didn't have a brief explanation of your ideas about the > issues before the vote. You sent one word: "denied." Then when the > guy you treated so rudely responded in kind, he was attacked instead > of you. To be clear, Mike, there is no vote. If you wish to propose an official community vote to re-enable Yahoo! accounts to the list, then do so. Besides, "Denied." isn't so rude, it's simply a statement. Perhaps he should have put a smiley face behind it; they're apparently necessary in email today. How about this one: :-P > I don't have time to read the rest of your aimless message with all > the exclamation points and one-word sentences, but it doesn't look > any more productive than some of the other messages you've sent > today. Actually, it was a relatively succinct account of the process that led to the community-driven decision to ban Yahoo! accounts from the list. It may not have been a masterpiece of literary delight, but it got to the point in few words. It's worth a read. Go to GMANE or the list archives if you routinely delete useful list email before you read it. In any case, you'll find no second in me for such a vote proposal, if it does make it to the list. If we have over 700 users on the list and require a majority vote to allow Yahoo back on, and if the quorum needed is, let's say 15%, then at least 74 votes must be cast (verified via PGP/GnuPG). The ballot would be simple: keep the ban, drop the ban, find a herring and use it to cut down the largest tree in the forest and then find a nice shrubbery... Or, we could just ignore all this and get back to talking about Linux? I suppose not... -- Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */