>Just say 12 weeks
Personally, I prefer the date to be as consistent as possible rather
than the day of the week.
Not that the elections are obliged to be then, of course, but it's
just my preference.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:37 PM, James Beirne wrote:
>> I'd definitely prefer just saying "wi
> I'd definitely prefer just saying "within 3 months before" and letting the
> IADoP handle any disputes.
> —Machiavelli
And I suppose it would only be a problem something like 5 days per
year, and even then only if there was supposed to be an election.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I'd definitely prefer just saying "within 3 months before" and letting the
> IADoP handle any disputes.
Just say 12 weeks; we already use "N days before/after" to mean "a
span of time lasting N full days after", not "the Nth start-of-day
aft
On Jul 22, 2013, at 12:17 PM, James Beirne wrote:
> My preferred alternative would be something like:
>
>> a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or the office is vacant
>>or assumed, or no election has been initiated for the office
>>since the Nth of M-3, where N is the
This was intended to mean that it will be on the Nth of month + 3, but
I wasn't thinking about end-of-month elections. My preferred
alternative would be something like:
>a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or the office is vacant
> or assumed, or no election has been initiated f
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote:
> >a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or the office is vacant
> > or assumed, or no election has been initiated for the office
> > within 3 months before the announcement;
I hate calendars.
Does this mean that if the ear
6 matches
Mail list logo
