|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
|  | 
| 
| Re: Vote for Eclipse [message #9028 is a reply to message #8495] | Tue, 29 April 2003 15:08  |  | 
| Eclipse User  |  |  |  |  | Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com 
 "K V" <reply@group.com> wrote in message news:b8lvj6$1c4$1@rogue.oti.com...
 > After the voting is closed, they audit to eliminate duplicate votes.
 > Inorder to cast your vote more than once, it is not just the email
 address,
 > you need to have multiple work phone numbers too..  I guess they are
 trying
 > their best to eliminate duplicate votes in their final audit.
 
 I'll bet they don't call all those numbers to see if they're real. ;-}
 
 > And yes, there might be a certain amount of manipulation. Just imagine,
 all
 > IBM employees are asked to vote for IBM products, they will certainly out
 > number others.
 
 Places I've worked in the past, it was routine to ask all employees to vote
 for company products. IBM would probably be embarrassed to do so, but many
 companies have no shame.
 
 Bob
 |  |  |  | 
| 
| Re: Vote for Eclipse [message #9049 is a reply to message #9028] | Tue, 29 April 2003 15:06  |  | 
| Eclipse User  |  |  |  |  | Originally posted by: mccull1.does.not.like.spam.us.ibm.com 
 No one has asked me to vote for IBM products, but then again, IBM is a big
 company.  Perhaps some in the Software Group associated with particular
 products have been so instructed, but perhaps not.  I seem to recall some
 controversy over Oracle encouraging votes for some of their newer (J2EE)
 products, but I could be mis-remembering that.
 
 As for IBM, I wouldn't relish trying to get 300,000 people to do anything
 quietly :)
 
 -Andrew
 
 P.S.  Obviously, none of us (those on this NG) needs much convincing to vote
 for Eclipse :)
 
 <SNIP>
 > Places I've worked in the past, it was routine to ask all employees to
 vote
 > for company products. IBM would probably be embarrassed to do so, but many
 > companies have no shame.
 >
 > Bob
 >
 >
 |  |  |  | 
Powered by 
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.26767 seconds