Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 16:57 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: TtTTPF with a bottom-post Is this a plausible synonym for TTttPF? The capitalisation there makes no sense. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 16:57 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: TtTTPF with a bottom-post Is this a plausible synonym for TTttPF? The capitalisation there makes no sense. The message itself was ttPF, and I can't think of any other reasonable interpretation, so I say yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:18:28 -0700, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 6863 O 1 2.0 coppro Be Exact AGAINST, announcing the amount should be SHALL 6864 O 1 3.0 coppro Urgency simplified already failed quorum (the down side of urgent proposals is that they can fail quorum faster) This proposal was urgent? I don't remember that. Did you maybe just think that because the name includes 'urgency'? Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision on 6865 as follows: ais523 voted 5F G. voted 7F Tiger voted 2F Wooble voted 5F outcome is FAILED QUORUM I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
NttPF On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision on 6865 as follows: ais523 voted 5F G. voted 7F Tiger voted 2F Wooble voted 5F outcome is FAILED QUORUM I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
omd wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: NUM  C I AI  SUBMITTER      TITLE 6863 O 1 2.0 coppro        Be Exact AGAINST 6864 O 1 3.0 coppro        Urgency simplified FOR 6865 O 1 2.0 G.          List Fixes AGAINST 6866 O 0 1.7 coppro        P Fix FOR 6867 O 0 2.0 omd         F fix FOR 6868 O 1 2.0 omd         Refactor contracts FOR 6869 O 1 1.7 G.          auto-remand FOR Are you still the Crown Prince? If so, then these are all ineffective because your voting limit is 0.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-10-24 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I transfer a kudo from Wooble (for the delay) to G. (for reminding me of the shorter voting period, which I would otherwise have botched). prop? -coppro
