Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> What about >>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-July/006753.html >>> ? >> That was not an accurate report of Salaries at the time of its >> publication. If that counted, I might as well replace all my reports >> with "Ribbon Holdings as of some date where I bothered tracking them" > > Sorry, but that's b.s. We've always allowed reports to not take account > for "things that cross in the mail" or "things that were within the time > window of preparing a report." Furthermore, even if we go with your > unsupported standard, what you're talking about is an inaccurate report, > not "no report." Or do you prefer that we go back and take away salaries > for every inaccuracy? > > It's a moot point here because it's not a salary issue, but that was in > fact a reasonably accurate report by any standards, with the only question > being whether a CoE/correction is relevant. > > -G.
You don't get salary in any case as the Accountor isn't high-priority.
