jfe

Well that explains it, the first thing that I got on my cell phone today was Punki's registration

So, now we know where it went

Randy Petersen

Here's what happened from the technology end:
Punki did submit an entry, but it happened at -- 5:39am Nov 3, 2006 which is well past the deadline. Because it was submitted at that time it was not logged/rejected by the database as applications were turned off at that time. Punki may have either had the application page opened from the previous day and submitted it on the 3rd or must have had the page cached from before and used it on the 3rd.

The bottom line here: It was not received by the database at the time that the candidates entry was closed. All members had plenty of time to ensure that their applications were received. Our focus of the prior research has always been what happened within the timeframe in which the candidate call was open to all members.

hfly

Funny, that is exactly what I had surmised happened.

Punki

Thank you for checking, Randy. I appreciate your efforts and the further investigation.

It was definitely Thursday morning that I completed and sent the application, but if it didn't get there until Friday, then it didn't get there until Friday. We have been having some issues with our server and sometimes when we send e-mail, it doesn't arrive for a day or two, so maybe the application got hung up somewhere in cyberspace like the e-mails have.

There are actually so many excellent candidates running this year that it will already be hard to pick among them anyway. It does seem a little odd, however, that there are a couple of candidates who have never posted on FT.

tazi

Not only have they never posted but Havannah's platform is almost insulting to those taking their campaigns seriously.

Randy Petersen

as you might know, several members including some who are running for office like to bring up the issue of transparency. So, that's what you have, no fact checking the applicants, no minimum posts, no IP address research, no minimum time as a member. I hope that those who like transparency aren't changing their minds now. A little too late i'd say? I like making sure members are members, but heck, what do i know. This "transparency" thing is all the rage, you know.

Punki

I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing that there are candidates with very few or no posts. I just think their agendas are odd.

Actually, the more they post within the TalkBoard Elections forum, the more curious and interesting wondering about their true objectives becomes.

^ for transparency.