Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the answer is 4 clearly
On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> wrote: > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please > > let me know.) > > > > Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the > > number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before > > they were initiated (not resolved). > > > > * They were initiated on July 15 > > * Last proposal decision resolved before that was 8057 on July 1 > > * Players voting on that decision were Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, > > twg, PSS, ATMunn, and possibly Trigon and Corona (either both > > effective or both ineffective) > > * V.J. Rada's loss of voting power didn't start till July 15 > > > > Thus, I believe the statement is FALSE; N was either 6 or 8, so > > quorum on 8066 et al was either 4 or 6. > > > > That doesn't resolve the question of whether it was 4 or 6, and it would > be helpful to find out. It's not with in the explicit mandate, but it is > within the scope of controversy. I haven't checked the details, but your > logic sounds valid. > > -Aris >
