>Wow Ginger, something we agree on 100% <grin> > >Humor aside, this is a serious matter and I feel very strongly that the EC >has overstepped its *job*. > >Holly Timm I agree. This is the third election we've had, and neither of the past two election committees made any rulings about what categories of Project members were to be allowed to vote. While the Bylaws are not very specific on what falls under the rubric of "overseeing" an election, in the past it has been choosing the software and the system, and the mechanics of running the nomination and voting process, not deciding eligibility requirements. I just don't see it as their job, any more than it would be to have them coming up with, say, rules about what questions had to be answered on a campaign page. Just because something is related to elections doesn't mean that making rules about it falls under "overseeing" elections. We should introduce a motion, but since the vote to overturn the April 1 deadline already failed, as much as I disagree with that deadline I fear that any motion worded in such a way that it would have the effect of nullifying that deadline might also fail to get a 2/3 majority. So under the principle that it is better to re-enfranchise the co-cc's and the local special project coordinators than to be too ambitious and fail to re-enfranchise anybody, it would probably be more reachable if the vote were only to void the most recent announcement. (I hate this having to structure your motions to give them a chance of passing, when your conscience demands a motion that probably wouldn't pass, but this is the real world.) -- Teri