On 8 November 2011 07:10, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
>> > would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
>> > sentence to
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
> > would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
> > sentence to another officer (Registrar?)
>
> Perhaps just remove
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
> would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
> sentence to another officer (Registrar?)
Perhaps just remove the requirement that switches be tracked by a
On 11/07/2011 06:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt wrote:
>
>> Proposal: What? (AI=1)
>> {{{
>> Repeal Rule 2353 (The Conductor).
>> [All switches must be tracked]
>> }}}
>
> The point is, if we create a new switch and a new officer, but forget
> to specify that the latter tracks the former (this
scshunt wrote:
> Proposal: What? (AI=1)
> {{{
> Repeal Rule 2353 (The Conductor).
> [All switches must be tracked]
> }}}
The point is, if we create a new switch and a new officer, but forget
to specify that the latter tracks the former (this has actually
happened at least once), then R2353 preven
5 matches
Mail list logo
