On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Election Coordinator wrote to mark lewis:
EC> On Tuesday November 26 2013 10:59, you wrote to me:
EC>> Voting for FTSC membership has come to end. The results are EC>> preliminary as there is a one week period for reporting EC>> inconsistencies and filing complaints. If no vote is contested EC>> the results will become final on Sunday 1 December 2013, 20:00.
ml> personally speaking:
EC> As you are not a voter nor a candidate, you are not a directly EC> concerned party. Therefore I will not treat your input as a EC> separate complaint. You are of course concerned as a fidonet sysop,
ok...
EC> but in that capacity you have already been represented by your RC.
in that case, i will get these sent to my RC so that they can bring them up ;) other RCs should also use them if they desire...
but then i'm confused as to why my input is not valid input? the FTSC members designed and wrote the election rules... not the RCs or ZCs or others... the FTSC... IIRC, that would actually have been Mr Sorenson during the first remake of the FTSC... so why can't the FTSC members have any input now on how things are handled in the process??
EC> Instead I will treat you as an "amicus curiae". I will weigh the EC> relevant arguments you forwarded and consider them when judging Bob EC> Seeborn's protest.
ummm... are you considering only bob's ballot casting or are you considering ALL of the ballots cast? jonJ is still moving and may or may not be able to file a protest in the period alloted... there was a protest and the entire process has to be looked at and not just the one incident that was named in the protest by bobS... you are being too strict with your understanding of the loose written rules say...
