On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report?
The PNP reports the emptiness of the pool in the same message that it
distributes proposals. This works as long as there's at least one
proposal distribution each week.
--
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
[2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report?
Proposal distributions have been routinely including the boilerplate
text Proposal pool: empty (which counts)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
You don't have to track it if he doesn't accept.
Actually, at the moment e's required to initiate Agoran Decisions for
elections even if there are no candidates, and 4 days after your
nominations, no other
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 09:19 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I harvest the following CFJ numbers, for 2 WRV each:
2411
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2419
2401
2403
2405
2406
2407
2409
Murphy's CotC website for CFJ 2401 says:
Called by Warrigal 7 Mar 2009 20:42:01 GMT
Assigned to Goethe 7
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
In other words, your harvesting of 2401 fails because its ID number was
assigned more than a week ago. I haven't checked the other CFJs in your
list, but suspect many of the others have similar problems. This means
that the
I nominate myself for the position of Promotor.
2009/3/18 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or
upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation,
due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms in this context).
So you're judging that you can agree to an
2009/3/18 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
Actually, at the moment e's required to initiate Agoran Decisions for
elections even if there are no candidates, and 4 days after your
nominations, no other nominations can be made until these decisions
are resolved.
Oh, I forgot the IADoP
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:33 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/18 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or
upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation,
due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms in this
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 6164 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Yally
Low-priority Anarchism
Amend the first paragraph of rule 2216 (The Repeal-o-Matic) to read:
{
The Anarchist is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in misleading? (Open to voting FOR
if I'm missing something).
This would criminalize even accidentally incorrect
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in misleading? (Open to voting FOR
if I'm missing something).
This would
2009/3/18 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
6164 O 1 1.0 Yally Low-priority Anarchism
8xAGAINST. I like my anarchy weekly.
-Goethe
As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph The Anarchist's
weekly duties include the performance of the
following tasks(...) will
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph The Anarchist's
weekly duties include the performance of the
following tasks(...) will remain, so the only things actually
changing are that it won't have
2009/3/18 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
I see no reason to leave an office, especially one with a weekly duty,
vacant for any longer than necessary. In fact, I'm not sure there's a
good reason not to require the IADoP to nominate as soon as possible
for all vacant offices rather than
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
Proposal 6152 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Pavitra
H.
AGAINST
Proposal 6153 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by coppro
Patch Bug 6121
FOR
Proposal 6154 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Goethe
Third SHOULD fix
AGAINST.
Proposal 6155 (Ordinary,
coppro wrote:
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
Proposal 6152 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Pavitra
H.
AGAINST
NttPF
I strongly recommend H. Assessor consider this invalid lest we get
upside down Ithkuil ballots.
On 2009-03-19, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
Voto:
6152 D 1 3.0 Pavitra H.
CONTRAx8
6153 D 1 2.0 coppro Patch Bug 6121
PORx8
6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe
ehird wrote:
I strongly recommend H. Assessor consider this invalid lest we get
upside down Ithkuil ballots.
I consider this valid because I recognize the language, and especially
because all three key words are cognates of their English equivalents
(or, in the case of CONTRA, a rough synonym
Warrigal wrote:
Voto:
6152 D 1 3.0 Pavitra H.
CONTRAx8
6153 D 1 2.0 coppro Patch Bug 6121
PORx8
6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOULD fix
CONTRAx8; no importa la definición en realidad
6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
PORx8
6156
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
I FAIL.
That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
I FAIL.
That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
In context, I consider I FAIL. a reasonable
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
I FAIL.
That's probably not sufficiently
Sgeo wrote:
Why does it matter if someone successfully or unsuccessfully says TTttPF?
It changes whether or not quotations are interpreted as part of the text
of the message, and thus actions with them should be considered valid.
These have to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, but TTttPF
24 matches
Mail list logo
