ais523 wrote: > Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. > (That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived > in random order.)
And that's what happens on my end when (as you probably suspect by now) I respond to earlier e-mails before reading the later ones. > It's still arguable, though, that you can make a conditional vote and > only define what it means later; that's what I'm trying to establish > with my TETRAHEDRON experiment. I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying "I intend to vote on this later", and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
