"We": you and I in particular participated in this discussion on the 
elections team mailing list [1]. You were not convinced, but this is the 
available solution that the elections team decided on [2].

I agree with you that is an important issue. Just for clarity's sake - 
the decision on what system to use for *this* election will not be 
changed 4 days before voting begins. If you want to vote, please do 
register on SqP.

Daniel Vainsencher

[1] - 
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2005-December/thread.html
[2] - 
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2006-January/000094.html

Lex Spoon wrote:
> "Cees de Groot" <cdegroot at gmail.com> writes:
>   
>> On 20 Feb 2007 19:13:59 -0500, Lex Spoon <lex at lexspoon.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> We would do better to talk about it and decide.
>>>
>>>       
>> Personally, I'm not going to participate in this discussion. Because
>> we talked about it and we decided, last year. Nothing changed so far,
>> no need to spend time on this discussion.
>>     
>
>
> Clearly, "we" made no such decision, as evidenced by this very thread.
>
> People are posting that they do not like using an automatic reputation
> system to define who is in the group.  It is especially bad to use a
> system whose properties are neither known [1] nor discussed [2].
>
> Community membership is the heart of a community.  Are we going to
> bother?  Who does the SqueakFoundation represent?
>
>
> -Lex
>
>
> [1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2005-December/000010.html
>
> [2] There is no 2.  We are still just doing whatever.
>
>
>
>