DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: >> Also, if I'm not mistaken, Proposals 7111 and 7115 do exist and were >> distributed; the Deputy Promotor implicitly submitted them by >> distributing them. So. CoE: the author of Proposals 7111 and 7115 was >> actually Deputy Promotor omd. > > IIRC the precedent that proposals can be implicitly created this way > was invalidated by a subsequent rule change. Oh, and this makes a difference, because if 7111 existed it created a Power-1 Rule per R105.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Also, if I'm not mistaken, Proposals 7111 and 7115 do exist and were > distributed; the Deputy Promotor implicitly submitted them by > distributing them. So. CoE: the author of Proposals 7111 and 7115 was > actually Deputy Promotor omd. IIRC the precedent that proposals can be implicitly created this way was invalidated by a subsequent rule change.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Also, if I'm not mistaken, Proposals 7111 and 7115 do exist and were > distributed; the Deputy Promotor implicitly submitted them by > distributing them. So. CoE: the author of Proposals 7111 and 7115 was > actually Deputy Promotor omd. You're mistaken. The author of a proposal is an essential parameter.
Re: DIS: Presented without comment
On Aug 18, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > http://www.hitadude.com/ Strategy: Never hit a dude to your left. -Turiski
