From: bwr607@hotmail.com 
  
 Russ Allbery  wrote in 
 news:87zn3zwbws.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu: 
  
 > Hm.  Well, I don't think we've ever required "beyond reasonable doubt," 
 > and I'm fairly sure that the FMJ votes would have been rejected at any 
 > point in the last ten years.  In other words, I don't really see a change 
 > here. 
  
 Would the Stromboli votes have been unconditionally accepted throughout the 
 past 10 years? The ruling on the Linux on Xbox proposal might justify to 
 others that it is OK to solicit their families to vote. At least one 
 individual is threatening to get his family to vote against one of the 
 current proposals if his needs are not met - to include the amending of the 
 charter for an already existing group under the RFD of other proposed 
 groups. 
  
 With all due respect that I have for you, Russ, I think something needs to 
 be done about obvious block voting like the "Stromboli" case. "Beyond 
 reasonable doubt" was not required for cancellation of the FMJ votes..why 
 would it be required for the obviously phony Stromboli votes? 
  
 -- 
 Bill 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)