Kerim Aydin wrote: >I think you misunderstand my intent (meaning that yes, the wording is >poor). The initiator should not be required to report eir own support, >it's a common mistake and annoyance.
I recognised that you intended to avoid that part of the reporting, and I deliberately didn't include it in my version because I didn't think that change worthwhile. I think a habit of not reporting the implicit vote risks people not noticing a case where there is no implicit vote, and mistakenly letting through an action that didn't get enough support. But the point on which I thought your wording was poor is completely distinct: it's regarding how many votes need to be reported. If you require someone to report "up to 3 votes", that sounds like it could be satisfied by reporting one vote even if there are actually four. So I rewrote the reporting requirement to be more explicit. > The "all valid votes" >is a pointless clause, if e doesn't have the votes, e doesn't report >the decision. I think as a matter of principle the decision should be resolvable. -zefram
