On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 09:13, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 09:03 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 17:00, The PerlNomic Partnership >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >> > 6010 D 2 2.0 ais523 Rests >> FOR >> > 6011 D 0 3.0 Bayes Repeal 'Definition Definitions' >> SDONATE(1VP - AGAINST) >> > 6012 D 0 3.0 Bayes Repeal 'Vote Protection and Cutoff for >> > Challenges' >> SDONATE(1VP - AGAINST) >> > 6013 D 0 3.0 Bayes Repeal 'Dependent Actions' >> SDONATE(1VP - AGAINST) >> > I CFJ on the statement "If BobTHJ does not retract nor cast any further > votes on the Agoran decision on whether to adopt proposal 6011 for the > rest of its voting period, nor explicitly define eir current votes on > that proposal in the future, e will have at least one valid vote on that > decision". > > Arguments: > The pledge defining SDONATE was terminated recently, so it's not clear > that it has a meaning clear enough to be a conditional vote any more. Of > course, this is simply fixed by retract/revote or stating what is meant; > but this CFJ is about what would happen if it wasn't fixed. (Note that I > don't think the text of the pledge was reasonably available during the > voting period, because AFAIR Murphy deleted it from eir Notary website > when e intended to terminate it, rather than when it was terminated.)
Oops, I didn't realize that was terminated. There didn't seem much interest in the PAC anyway. Honorable Assessor, please treat any outstanding votes of SDONATE that I have cast as corresponding SELL votes instead. BobTHJ
