On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It still works fine for orphaned proposals that no-one's too bothered
> about; I'm guessing scam-reasons for keeping proposals in-system will
> be pretty rare. -G.
No, and that's the thing. c. resubmitted the proposals by announcing e
submit
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >(rendering the
> > rulechange effectively meaningless, at least if e plans on keeping
> > doing that...).
>
> It still works fine for orphaned proposals that no-one's too bothered
> about; I'm gu
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>(rendering the
> rulechange effectively meaningless, at least if e plans on keeping
> doing that...).
It still works fine for orphaned proposals that no-one's too bothered
about; I'm guessing scam-reasons for keeping proposals in-system will
be pretty
2010/1/19 ais523 :
>
>> 6608 3 1.0 c.GreenA Terrible Proposals
> FOR, but I suspect this is not a proposal; IIRC, I'm the author of this
> one (unless c. submitted a copy of my proposal and I didn't notice).
The typo aside (should be singular 'proposal'), I got it right. A
c. wrote:
>> 6613 3 3.0 copproRed De-cartes
> AGINST
As this lacks the history of AGAINT, I'm treating it as a
straightforward and thus non-ineffective typo for AGAINST.
G. wrote:
> I vote:
>> 6607 0 3.0 copproRed Festive Fix
> FOR
According to my records, you have 2 Rests, so your voting limit on
Red proposals is zero.
6 matches
Mail list logo
