Oops, I was under the impression creating a proposal was an automatic FOR. Guess not.
Gaelan > On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You didn't vote, so yes? > >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: >> Curious: should I have been shamed? Not gonna bother with judicial >> proceedings or anything, but it's an amusing bug in the rules if this is the >> case >> >> Gaelan >> >>> On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:58 PM Aris Merchant >>>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran >>>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal >>>> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the >>>> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >>>> >>>> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee >>>> (sh.) >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 7858* Gaelan 3.0 Fast Resolution, now working ais523 N/A [1] >>>> >>> >>> I vote AGAINST. >>> >>> I note that only 3 votes have been placed on proposal 7858, and only 2 of >>> which were within the original time frame, which has been extended now to >>> 14 days. >>> >>> As such it would be FAILED QUORUM, but instead i SHAME EVERYONE (other than >>> o and Veggiekeks) including myself [Wow that's a weird shall] for not >>> voting during the original time frame. It's our duty, fulfil our duties! >>> DUTIES!
