Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's the faulty one. It claims that the proposals were rejected,
but then reports votes that would cause the proposals to be adopted.
And it listed the text of the proposals under "Text of adopted
proposals". When two out of three indicators agree, and the
third can be reasonably assumed as an omission, does it still
need to be explicitly corrected? (If so, then root's VC awards
get delayed, possibly blocking eir awards for Proposal 5229.)
I accidentally omitted the * marks to indicate adoption, which I
think prompted the request for a non-blank mark to indicate rejection
Yes. In the format you used in that message, when you forget to put
in the marks (but do put in spaces where the marks are meant to go)
it ends up being an explicit claim that the proposals were rejected.
Using space as a mark with explicit meaning is troublesome.
The old format didn't explicitly state that blank space = REJECTED
(but they were intended and used that way in some previous messages),
muddling the issue a slight bit further.
Did anyone explicitly challenge the results within the one-week limit
before self-ratification? Does "I assume that's a typo" count as an
explicit challenge?
