On Sun, 04 May 2008 18:25:14 -0400, Axel wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:35:48 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
><hellsop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 May 2008 18:45:43 -0400, Siobhan wrote:
>>>> 2. Committees. Started off as people we know, now we're getting
>>>> professional promoters.
>
>>> 2. THE BID COMMITTEES
>
>>> c. A two-stage voting process where a bid has to be ratified on the ng
>>> berfore going to vote.
>>
>>C seems easiest, presuming that controlling the voter-pop becomes a pain
>>in the tuchis somehow.
>
> Hpw would this work in practice?
Bids get discussed here as part of the vetting process normally handled
by just the c*b*l; c*b*l chucks out the obvious clinkers for the usual
problems (clearly impractical budget, promises to book Insane Clown
Posse, organizer thinks a "family-friendly" no-booze event is the future
of Convergence, etc), we thrash it out here until we get a vague idea of
the mood, then we send it to the usual vote. Once the results come back,
we decide here if we're okay with the vote results, and release the
decision back to those that can't be arsed with USENET.
--
It seems that we were audited recently, and the auditors found a certain
'f' word in the comments of a configuration file, and deemed that this
is a 'security risk'.
-- Paul Fenwick
|
