[Mpi-forum] Voting results

Underwood, Keith D keith.d.underwood at intel.com
Wed May 30 15:10:44 CDT 2012

> On May 30, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:
> > Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for
> interpreting whether those two items passed.  The clarification of "what is
> required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting before the
> votes were taken.  We can't change the interpretation of a vote after the
> fact.  The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote again in July...
> maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P
> I hear what you're saying, but Mohammad has an excellent point, too.  His
> ticket would have passed (easily) under the old rules.  They were unable to
> attend, and were quite surprised when this ticket failed, despite the Forum
> expressing pretty clear consensus.

Yes, and that sucks.  And, there is no rational way to fix it - short of a time machine.  I'm sorry to say that if I had a time machine, this probably isn't the first miscarriage of justice that I would want to fix ;-)


More information about the mpi-forum mailing list