Ivan Hope wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 18:21, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> 5772 D 1 2.0 Murphy Loose ordering of ID numbers >>> LLAMA (PRESENT) >> The above vote is invalid per the Llama party agreement. > > Oops. With the consent of a majority of Llamas, I intend to amend the > Llama Party by replacing "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), > where X resolves to FOR or AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or > AGAINST, respectively." with "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA > (X), where X resolves to FOR, PRESENT or AGAINST, is a party vote > toward FOR, PRESENT or AGAINST, respectively."
While you're at it, the Llama agreement's use of "endorses" is not formally defined, and should be replaced with "resolves to".
