On Jan 17, 2008 3:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maud had the original idea, but I think I ended up writing the actual
> proposal. I still kind of favor lightening the requirements (e.g.
> SHOULD include all votes, but a correct announcement that the overall
> count went your way is
Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
Registrar
-
Thu 12 Jul 17:25:19 root nominated by Human Point Two
Tue 17 Jul 06:18:01 root installed by Human Point Two
Fri 7 Sep 18:25:49 PPnominated by comex
Mon 31 Dec 10:55:53 avpx nominated by Murphy
Levi, you appear to be
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 4:08 AM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Assessor
Sun 29 Apr 20:31:01 Office created by Proposal 4939
Sun 29 Apr 20:31:01 Murphyinstalled by Proposal 4939
Thu 12 Jul 17:25:19 BobTHJnominated by Human Point Two
Fri 7 Sep 18:25:49 PP
root wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 2:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fix looks fine, but on a broader scale remind me why dependent actions
have to be a subclass of Agoran Decision at all (i.e., the reporting
requirements have been fairly burdensome of late). -Goethe
Because somebody
On Jan 17, 2008 2:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fix looks fine, but on a broader scale remind me why dependent actions
> have to be a subclass of Agoran Decision at all (i.e., the reporting
> requirements have been fairly burdensome of late). -Goethe
Because somebody thought it
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 2:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 107, however, does not like the hybrid idea.
>
> Bleh. I'm wrong for two reasons. First, R107 explicitly exempts
> dependent actions, and second, I don't think it limits voting periods
On Jan 17, 2008 2:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's messy, as each individual consent item can be resolved anytime
> > between 4-14 days after intent. Now that offices are being contested
> > again, maybe we sho
On Jan 17, 2008 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's messy, as each individual consent item can be resolved anytime
> between 4-14 days after intent. Now that offices are being contested
> again, maybe we should just go back to elections (perhaps with a fixed
> 4-day instead of
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I think that I'm going to propose requiring Agoran consent in addition
> to the candidate's consent for each candidate in an election. Any
> objections?
That's messy, as each individual consent item can be resolved anytime
between 4-14 days after intent.
On Jan 17, 2008 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been assuming that it is, but just in case: I consent to my
> > nomination for Assessor.
>
> This doesn't change things. Only consenting within the initial
> four-day window would require the IADoP to conduct an election.
Not
root wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 11:59 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If your self-nomination is treated as implicit consent, then Levi
is overdue to initiate an election between you and BobTHJ. If not,
then nothing could have been done; only BobTHJ consented, and e
received 2 support (im
On Jan 17, 2008 11:59 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If your self-nomination is treated as implicit consent, then Levi
> is overdue to initiate an election between you and BobTHJ. If not,
> then nothing could have been done; only BobTHJ consented, and e
> received 2 support (implicitly
root wrote:
Registrar
-
Thu 12 Jul 17:25:19 root nominated by Human Point Two
Tue 17 Jul 06:18:01 root installed by Human Point Two
Fri 7 Sep 18:25:49 PPnominated by comex
Mon 31 Dec 10:55:53 avpx nominated by Murphy
Levi, you appear to be compensating for t
Zefram wrote:
Levi Stephen wrote:
Assessor AFO 23 Sep 07 16 Jan 08 T
Claim of error: Murphy installed BobTHJ on 15 Jan 08 (message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). The office then became vacant when
BobTHJ was deregistered by writ.
Ok, will be corrected.
Rulek
14 matches
Mail list logo
