I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election rules.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I object.
>
> This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
>
> If instead you ratify that a decision started back when you said it
> did (but with the new vote collector and all previous options as
> present nominees), it could all be wrapped up this week.
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I intend to ratify the following without objection. It is wrong as
>> there are or may be ongoing elections. I wish to ratify it to allow
>> new elections for the positions of ADoP and PM
>>
>> {{There are no ongoing elections.}}
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.
>> >>
>> >> Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
>> >> Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
>> >> lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed, and e didn't this time.
>> >>
>> >> I now have a "checklist" google doc I plan to consult, if ADoP again haha.
>> >
>> > Yah it's a huge pain in the rear I have a copy of the boilerplate from
>> > the Promotor that I know is right and I'm paranoid about following word-
>> > for-word (with appropriate substitutions) whenever I initiate one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
