[Foundation-l] [Election] Unqualified votes striking

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 7/5/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third
> > > party election partner) initially were wrong. There was a bug in the
> > > edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with
> > > 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits.
> >
> > Wait. Did you simply misspeak above?   Is the situation only that the
> > edit count criteria was misapplied and nothing has been changed from
> > the official election rules.
> >
> > If that is the case then there is no problem, although more care is
> > required in the communications sent.
>
> I tihkn it's just confusion over where the cutoffs like - as I
> understand it, the rules haven't changed, it's just that we
> accidentally implemented them wrong the first time.
>
> As for communication, oh, the joys of half of us speaking in a second
> or third language...

The rule has been June 1, 2007 400 edits,  March 1, 2007 first edit. I
am quite sure of this.

There is a lot of confusion over the requirements ... and the election
com. sending out an email saying that 220 votes were stricken because
they did not have 400 edits before March 1st will certainly not help
things.

So long as the list of eligible voters has been determined in a manner
which is in accordance with the disclosed rules, it is a result which
is entirely derived from public data and could be reproduced by
anyone. As such the list should be made public, ideally on the day of
announcement, so that anyone interested can verify it.