On Friday, November 4, 2016, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 01:12 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > [As pointed out on a-d, my original distribution contained incorrect > > text, rendering it invalid. I'm afraid everyone's going to have to > > re-cast their votes. Sorry about the mix-up.] > > a) You posted this to a-d. > b) We have some precedent that attempting to distribute a typo-ed > proposal leads to the Promotor submitting the proposal immediately > before distributing it, in which case both proposals are valid (and the > new one should therefore probably have a new number). I have no idea if > that precedent still holds under the current ruleset. > > -- > ais523 > As per the title, it was a draft. To see if I messed something up again, or if my mailer did. And thanks, I'll re-number just in case. Although then someone else needs to pend it, I used mine up. -Aris
