Actually, 1, 2, 4 can each be done in 15 minutes by anyone wanting voting rights, and in a way that gives absolutely nothing back to the community.
How about publishing a package on SM, or SqueakSource, or contributing a version to SqS?
OTOH, the people in Lex's second list are only credit-less in SqP because they've never had reason to join. Assuming they want to vote on something, they'll have to login somewhere anyway, so they need to create a user anyway. We can certainly make it so the voting system is another route to creating an SqP user. Could then allow the new user to send a mail to a couple of existing members saying something like "hey I joined, please rate me".
On the gripping hand, if we agree a voting system is needed, and that SqP should be a source of valid voters (maybe one of several), then we should proceed to build it, and consider adding other sources of voters later.
So, anyone think we don't want a voting system, or that it shouldn't be Condorcet, or that SqP is a bad initial source of voters?
Daniel
Peter Crowther wrote:
From: [...] Lex Spoon How about defining the initial voting group as anyone who meets one of the following criteria?
1 posted code to a Squeak bug tracker 2 posted to squeak-dev 3 made 1000 lines of Squeak code publically available 4 assembled an etoy with at least 3 lines of script in it 5 published a paper based on Squeak 6 gave a talk to 5+ people based on Squeak
How does this list sound as the crowd that gets voting rights?
2 is the odd man out. For example: I've kibitzed a lot, developed some code for myself, but nobody can say I've *contributed* anything but hot air. Should I have a vote?
- Peter
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections