Taral wrote:
>> 6168 O 1 1.1 WarrigalA Silly Bribe
> AGAINSTx5
[snip]
>> 6186 O 0 1.0 coppro coppro Discusses Too Much
> AGAINSTx5
These missed the end of the voting period by about 2 hours.
Wooble wrote:
> I come off hold. I vote as follows:
Never mind, found it in the a-b archive. It was after the start of
the voting period, so your votes are valid.
Wooble wrote:
> I come off hold. I vote as follows:
You came off hold on March 2, and I didn't see a message that you went
on hold since then.
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 15:43 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I come off hold. I vote as follows:
If you were on hold at the start of the voting period, you can't vote.
(I'm not sure if this is the case or not.)
--
ais523
Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 6186 O 0 1.0 coppro coppro Discusses Too Much
> AGAINST x 2 (s/consistency/consistently)
That's a minor spelling error that could be submitted as a Cleanliness
correction.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 6172 D 1 2.0 Goethe enough again already
> AGAINST; arguably this would simply loosen the restrictions on
> partnerships, because IIRC there's precedent that in the absence of
> rules surrounding the situation, they're persons.
W
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> AGAINST; arguably this would simply loosen the restrictions on
> partnerships, because IIRC there's precedent that in the absence of
> rules surrounding the situation, they're persons.
No, because after the precedent we adopted R2150.
7 matches
Mail list logo
