We have one veto on the record. I believe we need an
explanation for the veto in order for it to be
counted?
--- Danesh Irani <danesh.i@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 Reject the tally
>
> I hope people arent voting to reject the proposal
> just because they
> didnt like the outcome.
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:40:41 -0800, Mike Matrigali
> <mikem_app@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Kathey Marsden wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me that it would be very sad and bad
> karma to have our logo under such a cloud of
> suspicion. So I would like to call a vote to
> reject this tally. I've heard lots of great ideas
> on how to resolve this issue either technologically
> or socially but I think first we need to establish
> that this tally is incorrect. Then if we agree to
> reject, ensuing discussions can determine how to
> best choose a logo.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Logo 32 = 20 votes
> > >>>Logo 35 = 12 votes
> > >>>None of the above = 18 votes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vote
> > > +1 Reject the tally. New method of choosing a
> logo is determined by the community.
> > > -1 Not to reject the tally. Keep the vote tally
> as is with 32 as the winner.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Kathey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|