On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 23:19 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> > Partnership (a public contract).
>
> I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so
> these are ineffective. Please let
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so
these are ineffective. Please let me know if I missed something.
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 6309 AGAINST
> 6314 AGAINST
> 6318 AGAINST
These missed the end of the voting period by about 5.5 hours.
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 11:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> > 6155 FOR
>
> Ineffective due to caste.
>
Actually, given the PNP's standard voting header, it was specifically
purporting to vote 0 times. So ineffective due to being a no-op.
--
ais523
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 6155 FOR
Ineffective due to caste.
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 6111 AGAINST
About a day too late.
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 6014 FOR
This missed the end of the voting period by a few hours.
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 13:53 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> >
> > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> > Partnership (a public contract).
> >
> > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> >
On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
Partnership (a public contract).
The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
number of times equal to the maximum number of valid votes that
the PerlNomic
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 5674 FOR
Ineffective, voting period already ended.
> 5685 FOR
Effective.
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the
> number of the proposal the decision is about.
"EVLOD" is n
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 11:04 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
>
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on
2008/8/11 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
>
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ord
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with that is, under the old system, there were definitely
> multiple things called "voting limits". "Effective voting limit on that
> decision" and replacing "ordinary decision" with "decision" is probably good
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 08:09, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> >
> >> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> >> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnersh
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
>> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
>> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
>> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is ide
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the
> number of the proposal the decision is about.
The above bo
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 00:18 +0100, Zefram wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > Zefram does not update it instantaneously when
> >the voting period ends.)
>
> It's not intended to be a list of proposals that are in their voting
> period, it's a list of *unresolved* proposals. A propo
ais523 wrote:
>Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
>which will certainly fail;
This is a reason for the PNP's message to include a phrase such as
"if the proposal is in its voting period".
> Zefram does not update it instantaneously when
ais523 wrote:
> Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
> which will certainly fail; the PNP often votes late on Agoran Decisions
> due to the players of PerlNomic not deciding fast enough, and it's much
> easier for it to simply perform the failed actions than it wo
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It can't just add a week from the distribution date?
I believe the rationale for not doing that was to not remove proposals
that were still in their voting period due to failed quorum, but
that's been rare lately, and I'd be h
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that Wooble caused the PNP to send these votes not because e
> thought they would work, but because it was the easiest way of
> uncluttering the PNP's idea of what was going on in Agora after its
> server crash.
>
> Say
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 21:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> > 5590 AGAINST
> > 5591 AGAINST
> > 5593 FOR
> > 5594 FOR
> > 5596 FOR
> > 5597 AGAINST
> > 5598 PRESENT
>
> These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period.
I suspect that Wooble caused
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 5590 AGAINST
> 5591 AGAINST
> 5593 FOR
> 5594 FOR
> 5596 FOR
> 5597 AGAINST
> 5598 PRESENT
These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period.
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 07:08 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The voting period has already ended on these proposals.
>
> Hmm; the agora_sync program is supposed to remove proposals
> corresponding to Agoran proposals that are
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The voting period has already ended on these proposals.
Hmm; the agora_sync program is supposed to remove proposals
corresponding to Agoran proposals that are no longer open, and was
working right a while ago.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
>
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Part
27 matches
Mail list logo
