- 1. [SECC] Tie-breaker (score: 1)
- Author: jpryor@arches.uga.edu (Jay Pryor)
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:36:01 -0400
- The possibility exists that we could have a tie for one or more of the spots for the SECC nomination for WRTC-2002. Here's what I propose for a tie-breaker: If there is a tie, we will have a vote of
- /archives//html/SECC/2001-06/msg00013.html (7,259 bytes)
- 2. [SECC] Tie-breaker (score: 1)
- Author: ad4j@arrl.net (Jim Worthington)
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:39:01 -0400
- I agree with the tie breaker proposal. - Jim, AD4J -- SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/ Submissions: secc@contesting.com Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com Problems: owne
- /archives//html/SECC/2001-06/msg00014.html (6,574 bytes)
- 3. [SECC] Tie-breaker (score: 1)
- Author: k4bai@worldnet.att.net (John Laney)
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:59:49 -0400
- The proposal by K4OGG of a tie-breaker procedure is OK with me. 73, John, K4BAI. -- SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/ Submissions: secc@contesting.com Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST
- /archives//html/SECC/2001-06/msg00015.html (7,887 bytes)
- 4. [SECC] Tie-breaker (score: 1)
- Author: n4uk@mindspring.com (n4uk@mindspring.com)
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:11:38 -0400
- K4BAI. -- SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/ Submissions: secc@contesting.com Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com -- SECC on the Web: ht
- /archives//html/SECC/2001-06/msg00016.html (8,288 bytes)
- 5. [SECC] Tie-breaker (score: 1)
- Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (Ed)
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:24:24 +0000
- I see no reason why the "tie vote" could not be voted on by the membership at large. Simply establish a deadline for the original vote, a deadline for the "tiebreaker" and let it go. 73 Ed -- SECC on
- /archives//html/SECC/2001-06/msg00017.html (6,890 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu